Watch : Kevin Costner Ordered to Pay Ex Wife $129K Per Month

Kevin Costner is speaking out on his divorce battle.

The Yellowstone star got candid on his ongoing court proceedings with wife of 18 years Christine Baumgartner following a hearing in Santa Barbara, Calif. on Sept. 1.

Baumgartner is asking for $161,592 per month in child support for their kids Cayden, 16, Hayes, 14, and Grace, 13, while Costner is arguing he should only have to pay $60,000 per month, per People. In court, her lawyers accused Costner, 68, of earning more money that he’d previously said, prompting the actor to quip, “Oh good, we’ll have to have a treasure hunt to find it,” according to Access Hollywood.

Following the apparent joke, Costner spoke to the outlet outside the courthouse on the serious state of affairs.

“Were you laughing? I wasn’t,” he said. “This is a horrible place to be but this is where we’re at.”

The Oscar winner continued, “It feels so bad, we’re talking about somebody I love on the other side… I just can’t.”

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways

Lisa Hochstein is under fire as her estranged husband, Lenny Hochstein, accuses her of dragging out their divorce proceedings.

Lenny, who filed for divorce in 2022, says that Lisa’s refusal to agree on crucial terms kept him from finalizing the split. Now, with her lawyer stepping back and hitting her with a lien, Lisa’s legal struggles are mounting.

The divorce battle has been messy from the start, with Lisa Hochstein previously pushing for court orders to secure alimony and child support.

Lisa Hochstein’s Refusal To Sign Confidentiality Clause Keeps Divorce In Limbo

MEGA

In their long-running divorce saga, Lisa and her estranged husband have reportedly reached a tentative agreement on most issues.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

However, the proceedings have hit a roadblock as Lenny claims that Lisa is refusing to agree to a non-disparagement and confidentiality clause in their parenting plan.

The Miami plastic surgeon’s recent court filing reveals that while the couple has worked out most details of custody, Lisa’s reluctance to sign off on a clause that would keep their personal matters out of the public eye is delaying a final settlement.

His attorney argues that confidentiality and avoiding negative remarks, especially around their children, is essential to protect their well-being, adding that it “is ALWAYS in the best interest of the children.”

Despite this assertion, In Touch reports that Lisa has yet to accept the terms, leaving Lenny frustrated by the ongoing stalemate.

More Trouble For The ‘RHOM’ Star As Lawyer Quits

Lisa’s divorce from her former beau has taken another twist, with one of her attorneys, John Lambros, stepping down from the case. Lambros claims that Lisa has other legal representation capable of handling the divorce without him.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

However, his firm filed a lien against Lisa, claiming she owes $26,573 in unpaid fees. Meanwhile, Lenny accuses Lisa of breaching their settlement by taking items not granted to her, adding fuel to an already heated split.

According to earlier reports from US Weekly, the embittered ex alleged that Lisa removed a $35,000 Fendi table, nearly all the plants from their Florida home, and 90 percent of the artwork.

The TV Personality Claimed ‘RHOM’ Salary Could Not Sustain Her Lifestyle

The divorce feud between the reality TV star and her ex-husband has been nothing short of intense, with each side raising fresh grievances.

In her push last year for alimony and child support, Lisa argued her “Real Housewives of Miami” paycheck of $30,000 per episode fell far short of what was needed to support their children and maintain her lifestyle.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

The 42-year-old described her work on the show as “part-time,” contrasting it with Lenny’s lucrative career as a plastic surgeon, which reportedly brings in millions annually.

Lisa emphasized that she was primarily a stay-at-home mom during their marriage, relying heavily on Lenny’s income.

Lisa Hochstein Fought To Keep Their Marital Home

In her divorce fight with the father of her children, Lisa sought to keep the couple’s lavish marital home despite a prenuptial agreement requiring her to vacate.

Court filings reveal that the mother-of-two formally requested “exclusive use and occupancy” for herself and their children.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

The documents obtained emphasized that “[Lenny] has the means to and has already established an alternate, luxurious residence,” making her request reasonable.

Additionally, Lisa asked the court to mandate her ex’s continued coverage of medical, dental, and other necessary insurance for both her and their children.

Judge Ordered Lenny Hochstein To Pay Ex-Wife $8,000 Monthly

In a small but crucial win, Lisa scored temporary financial relief in her divorce battle with Lenny. Following weeks of contentious proceedings, a Miami judge ordered the renowned plastic surgeon to pay Lisa $8,000 a month in support, beginning May 1, 2023.

At the time, The Blast reported this payment was temporary, meaning Lenny could be required to pay even more—or potentially less—as the case developed.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Alongside the financial order, Lenny was instructed to “maintain the status quo” for Lisa and their children, ensuring they continue living the lifestyle established during their marriage.

Between attorney shake-ups and disputes over luxury items, Lisa Hochstein’s divorce drama is far from over, with each development adding to the high-stakes battle.

Credit: Shutterstock What Erika Knew

A source told Us that Erika never thought Tom “could be capable of doing what he has been accused of in court.”

“Erika was completely unaware of the very serious allegations that were being made against Tom in court,” the source told Us, referring to the fraud accusations. “Tom always handled all of the finances and that was how they handled things. Erika feels betrayed by Tom because she completely trusted him. She is just reeling from all of this, but make no mistake. Erika is a tough cookie and she isn’t stupid. She will get through this.”

According to a second source, Erika is still in “disbelief” about the alleged cheating and legal drama: “The legal issues are unfolding one after another and she’s learning as everyone’s filing. As the whole world is finding out about it, she’s finding out about it. She’s reading about it in the press before she even sees it [from her lawyers].”

While she has seemingly maintained her innocence in all RHOBH footage, Jay Edelson, the lawyer who filed the class action lawsuit against the pair, claimed she was aware of the scheme.

“We believe we’re going to be able to prove that Erika was incredibly involved in not just the law firm, but also, he was loaning money to her company 10s of millions of dollars to her company,” Edelson said on the “Reality Life with Kate Casey” podcast in June 2021. “And we think that money came from client funds. And we’re going to look into all of that. And that’s all going to be, you know, part of proof that we showed to a jury — that she was knee-deep in this fraud, and she can say, ‘Oh, she didn’t know anything about it.’ And I think that’s going be hard for to convince a jury of.”

The wife of embattled former Indiana sheriff Jamey Noel has filed for divorce as the couple heads toward their separate criminal trials in a massive, ongoing corruption probe alleging millions were stolen in public funds to bankroll the family’s extravagant lifestyle.

That lifestyle included included luxury travel and plastic surgery, according to prosecutors.

Misty Noel, 50, filed for divorce Thursday in Clark County from her husband of 28 years, citing an “irretrievable breakdown” of their marriage, according to court records. The couple has been separated since April, the filing said.

The Noels face multiple charges in a massive corruption probe by state investigators alleging more than $5 million was stolen from county and fire agency funds to pay for a private plane, college tuitions, beauty services, vacation timeshares, air travel, classic cars, booze, and high-priced cigars, according to criminal complaints filed against them.

Misty Noel is charged with 10 felonies for spending hundreds of thousands in nonprofit fire agency monies and not declaring the funds as income, according to a criminal complaint.

Daughter Kasey Noel, 27, is charged with using public funds to purchase tanning services, beauty appointments and Amazon purchases, according to a criminal complaint.

Jamey Noel faces 31 felonies, including money laundering, official misconduct and theft, fraud and ghost employment.

All the Noels have pleaded not guilty. Jamey Noel’s criminal trial is scheduled for November. Misty Noel has requested her trial be postponed to late October, according to court records. Kasey Noel’s trial is scheduled for later this month.

The Noels have not publicly commented about their cases.

Last week, search warrant affidavits filed in court alleged Noel used fire agency funds to pay for trips with his mistress, then-County Council member Brittney Ferree, with whom he was having an affair, went on trips together that Noel paid for air fares and expenses with money stolen from the nonprofit fire agency.

Noel and the council woman took three trips together, from 2019 to 2022, when he was sheriff and she was a council member, prosecutors allege. Noel also used county and fire agency monies to pay court-ordered child payments to Ferree, with whom he fathered a child, according to prosecutors and family court records.

Ferree is no longer on the council and has not been charged. Her attorney has declined comment.

Jamey Noel, who also was a top local GOP leader, has been the target of a staggering Indiana State Police probe since June 2023.

The investigation is led by a special prosecutor and a special judge, who in April ordered Noel to be jailed in lieu of $1.5 million cash bail. The judge ruled Noel was in contempt of court for having guns in his house, which was a violation of his bond conditions.

How did this case start?

The Public notice

The wife’s lawyers said she was just trying to inform everybody that she remained married to him, and hence, legally, he could not enter into a second marriage

● She did not have any intention of defaming anybody, and she did not have any ill motive. The notice was published not to malign anybody.

● The notice was published for the good of society.

● The wife had only tried to intimate and make aware through the said notice that there was a subsistence of marriage between herself and her husband. She had only tried to make everybody aware that he is married to her, and there is a subsistence of the marriage, so any further marriage by him could only give rise to the second marriage, which is not acceptable in the eyes of the law.

The husband’s lawyers said he is a respectable government officer, and these defamatory public notices tarnished his image before the public

She has not been able to prove the source of the information on the basis of which notices were published on two dates.

In this instant case, publishing a notice of marrying for the second time without a divorce from the first marriage is not only illegal but also a social stigma, as such mentioning that he is trying to marry another girl surely tarnishes the image before the public.

In the written statement, the name of one Devi has been mentioned, but the same has not been corroborated by the wife in her evidence. This shows that the wife had no knowledge about the facts which have been published.

Neither has she been able to establish the fact that the attempt at marriage was true, nor has she been able to establish the source of such information.

The husband is a respectable person in society and is holding the post of assistant engineer in a government department.

There are witnesses who have been deposed that the image of the husband has suffered a setback because of the said two notices published.

The Calcutta High Court says: A man’s reputation is his property and, in certain cases, more valuable than other properties

According to the law of Torts, defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of interference with the property. A man’s reputation is his property and, in certain cases, more valuable than other properties. The essentials of defamation are :

In the present case, the allegation of going to marry for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage amounts to general damages and is actionable per se.

In an action for defamation the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains has been referred to him. It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If from the statement published it can be reasonably inferred that the statement refers to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.

Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed, and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies. Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough because defamation is injury to the reputation, and reputation consists of the estimation in which others hold him and not a man’s own opinion of himself.

In this present case, the fulcrum are the two notices which are the same, published in the same daily newspaper on two different dates.

Calcutta High Court cross examines the wife and finds out she cannot prove the source of the information about her husband’s 2nd marriage

During her examination- in chief she has time and again asserted the fact that it is not a fact that, with a view to humiliate and/or defame the plaintiff, publication has been made in the newspaper by which the reputation of the plaintiff has been tarnished.

During her cross-examination, she admitted the fact that she did not prove the allegation of an illicit relationship of her husband and has also stated that she does not know the name of the lady whom her husband was going to marry, and she made an endeavour to collect particulars of that lady but could not succeed even though she made paper publication.

She has also admitted that she has not mentioned the name of the person from whom she was informed that her husband was going to marry.

Thus, from the evidence of the wife, it transpires that she has neither been able to disclose the name of the informant nor has she been able to name the alleged girl whom her husband is going to marry.

The Calcutta High Court’s final judgement: Wife to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation for husband’s reputation loss due to her defamatory public notice

This Court is of the view that damages to reputation through libel are hard to quantify, but the other side of the coin is also the fact that each and every citizen of this country, as per the provision laid down under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has the fundamental right to live with dignity.

In this present case, the wife has published a notice not only once but on two dates in a daily newspaper, which according to herself, has been published without having the knowledge of the informant, and in addition, in spite of her diligent efforts, she has not been able to gather the information as regards the name of the girl with whom she has entangled her husband, that is, Ramchander.

This, according to a person of prudent thinking, causes emotional distress to the person involved, whom such news is circulated about having no basis.

The Law of Torts does not have the power to put a person in incarceration, but it has been empowered to award damages. To deter any person from spreading any baseless news defaming another person, damages have been incorporated under the Law of Torts. Quantifying such amounts of damages acts as a deterrent factor and nothing more than that, and it is imposed to keep the society intact.

What is the significance of this judgement?

The Calcutta High Court on April 11, 2025, directed a wife to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation for damaging her husband ’s reputation. She published two defamatory statements in a newspaper against her husband. The public notices indicated that he was preparing to marry another woman while their divorce proceedings were still ongoing in court. However, the husband contended that this was totally a false and fabricated story.In response to the damage inflicted on his reputation and character, the husband approached the Calcutta High Court and filed a defamation case against both his wife and the editor of the newspaper. Several sworn witness’s testimony, presented by the husband’s lawyer before the court, revealed that his wife’s public notices caused humiliation and badly tarnished his reputation in society, as people questioned his character.When the court enquired how the wife became aware of her husband’s alleged second marriage, she could only respond that she had heard it from a ‘reliable source’. She, however, failed to prove or present this ‘reliable source’ before the court or even mention the name of the woman with whom her husband was allegedly planning to marry.Ultimately, the Calcutta High Court found her guilty of tarnishing her husband’s reputation and analysed the Law of Torts and said, “A man’s reputation is his property and, in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties.”The Calcutta High Court held that the husband’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India were violated due to her actions, and hence, as per the Law of Torts, she is liable to pay compensation to him. The Calcutta High Court on April 11, 2025, ordered the wife to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to the husband.Read below to know how the husband won this defamation case and what the Law of Torts says and how the husband’s Article 21 rights were violated by the wife due to these defamatory public notices in the newspaper.According to the order of the Calcutta High Court dated April 11, 2025, here are the details:Marriage between the couple happens.A son is born out of their wedlock.The matrimonial tie between the husband and wife broke and the husband sought divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.The Trial Court grants divorce to the husband. Wife files an appeal against the order of the Trial Court in the Calcutta High Court, division bench.Wife published two public notices alleging that she learnt from reliable sources about her husband’s intention for 2nd marriage despite them not being divorced yet.Calcutta High Court, division bench denies relief to the husband and allows the wife’s appeal. The husband filed a civil appeal in Calcutta High Court against this order.Calcutta High Court finds wife guilty of defamation against her husband and orders her to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for damages.The public notice published in a newspaper by the wife:Source: Calcutta High Court judgementAccording to the order of the Calcutta High Court, here’s what the wife’s lawyers said:According to the order of the Calcutta High Court, here are the details:The Calcutta High Court said:1. The statement must be defamatory;2. The said statement must refer to the plaintiff;3. The statement must be published.The Calcutta High Court said:“Witnesses have deposed, stating that in their view the reputation of the husband has degraded. Thus, there is ample proof of defamation,” said the Calcutta High Court.The Calcutta High Court said:The Calcutta High Court referred to this precedent to determine the compensation amount:“This Court is of the view that there being defamation of the husband by the wife, the impugned order requires certain modification, which is to the extent that the appellant/wife / has to pay Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) to the Respondent/Husband/ within three (3) months from this date.”Arnaz Hathiram, Digital Media Professional, says: “Divorce proceedings of private individuals are personal matter. As a thumbrule, both parties must refrain from writing or publishing anything in media, while the matter is subjudice. The cost of Rs 1 lakh levied on a working independent wife may not really be penal for her. However, with this order, the Calcutta HC has surely set the tone for deterring either spouse from defaming the other in media.”ET Wealth Online has asked various legal experts about the significance of this judgement. Here’s what they said:The significance of this judgment is that a wife’s act of publishing a public notice disclosing her husband’s marital status was held to be defamatory. Her defense that it was done without malice and in public interest to warn other women was found legally unsustainable, amounting to tarnishing his reputation.The judgment reinforces that imputations affecting an individual’s character, when made publicly, constitute actionable defamation. In the present matter, the wife issued two public notices alleging her husband’s intent to contract a void marriage, asserting such union would be illegal and confer no legal status. The husband instituted a civil suit for defamation against the wife and the editor. The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench) decreed Rs 1 lakh in compensatory damages, holding the publication to be a reckless and malicious act, injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation, and unsupported by lawful justification or privilege.The judgment sets a critical precedent that civil defamation laws apply within matrimonial relationships when one spouse publicly and falsely maligns the other. It opens the door for aggrieved individuals to seek compensation for reputational harm suffered due to defamatory acts by their partner, even if no criminal proceedings are involved. It also clarifies that freedom of expression does not extend to unverified public accusations, particularly when they tarnish an individual’s public image. Going forward, this decision may deter parties from resorting to vindictive tactics like public notices or social media defamation during marital disputes, promoting more responsible conduct and legal recourse. This judgment sets a precedent that either of the party cannot defame the other party without any evidence. The Calcutta High Court has reinforced that personal reputation is a constitutionally protected facet of dignity under Article 21. It states that unsubstantial allegations when made in public can lead to serious legal consequences. The Court felt that intention behind the statement becomes irrelevant if the result is reputational harm.This judgment sets a precedent that either of the party cannot defame the other party without any evidence. The Calcutta High Court has reinforced that personal reputation is a constitutionally protected facet of dignity under Article 21. It states that unsubstantial allegations when made in public can lead to serious legal consequences. The Court felt that intention behind the statement becomes irrelevant if the result is reputational harm. The judgment sets a critical precedent that civil defamation laws apply within matrimonial relationships when one spouse publicly and falsely maligns the other. It opens the door for aggrieved individuals to seek compensation for reputational harm suffered due to defamatory acts by their partner, even if no criminal proceedings are involved. It also clarifies that freedom of expression does not extend to unverified public accusations, particularly when they tarnish an individual’s public image. Going forward, this decision may deter parties from resorting to vindictive tactics like public notices or social media defamation during marital disputes, promoting more responsible conduct and legal recourse.The significance of this judgment lies in its ability to reduce such actions undertaken by the disgruntled parties to a dispute. This judgment clarifies what constitutes defamation and explains this concept with the facts of this case where the person who had issued a certain publication had no basis of his/her statements so published.