“If Christine, in any manner, challenges or assists in the challenge of the validity or enforceability of any provision of this Agreement, she shall lose any and all rights to receive any payment, Property or Interest from Kevin pursuant to this Agreement,” according to the agreement, which attorneys for the 68-year-old Oscar winner quoted in legal documents filed June 28.
Marilyn Chinitz, a matrimonial attorney at Blank Rome in New York (she does not represent either of the Costners) tells PEOPLE such clauses in prenuptial agreements are fairly routine. “Attorneys call these provisions ‘in torrerem’ because it is a clause to instill fear. They are incentivizing someone from challenging the agreement.”
Jon Kopaloff/FilmMagic
Celebrity divorce attorney Randy Kessler, who has represented formerReal Housewives of Atlantastar NeNe Leakes and rapper Cardi B., agrees it’s standard. The lawyer, who likewise doesn’t work with Kevin or Christine, calls the clauses “very common. I have seen people agree to much more onerous terms and conditions.”
The legal team for Costner—who has already paid his wife the $1.5 million she is owed under the terms of their agreement, which both parties signed before tying the knot in 2004—quoted the prenuptial agreement in response to a request from Christine’s side that Kevin pay for her attorney fees.
Lester Cohen/Getty
Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE’s free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human-interest stories.
Gonzalo Marroquin/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images
Chinitz says Christine’s legal argument is likely a nonstarter because “the agreement is presumed to be a valid agreement until such time as a court sets it aside.”
Christine, who shares sons Cayden, 16, and Hayes, 14, and daughter Grace, 13 with Kevin, has said she was staying put until she had a child support agreement in place in order to set up a “suitable separate household.” She requested $248,000 per month, an amount Kevin’s side slammed as “inflated.”
Chinitz says Judge Anderle’s ruling should speak loudly to Christine’s side. “He’s signaling to the attorneys, ‘I’m enforcing the agreement.'”
The court has set a trial date of November 27 to determine its validity. But even if Christine loses, Chinitz says she may only be on the hook for Kevin’s legal fees, not the entire amount of her divorce settlement.
“Courts don’t like to be punitive,” she explains. “What the court can do instead is require that party to pay the legal fees and any expenses that the other party was caused to incur.”
source: people.com
