HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Melissa Etheridge’s Ex: I...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:27 PM

 

Melissa Etheridge’s Ex: I Can’t Live On $23K A Month

Twenty grand a month or so probably sounds like a nice payout to most average divorcees out there. However, Melissa Etheridge's ex-partner, Tammy Lynn Michaels, isn't one of them. The 37-year-old former actress has filed documents claiming she cannot survive on the $23,000 Etheridge is granting her monthly in child and spousal support.

So, how much money does Michaels need, exactly? Well, according to the paperwork, she explains she became accustomed to a monthly budget of $128,000 during her nearly 9-year relationship with the iconic rocker. Etheridge and Michaels

Michaels also noted that she "has limited income and virtually no savings," while Etheridge "has extensive resources at her disposal and a tremendous earning capacity."

The couple weathered an acrimonious split in April 2010 and share custody of their 5-year-old twins--daughter Johnnie Rose and son Miller. Michaels' most recent court filing also seeks to reduce Etheridge's custodial time with the children, claiming that Etheridge is teaching them to be "distant and withdrawn" to her.

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/melissa-etheridge-ex-t-live-23k-month-170820392.html

My mind reels at these figures.

13 replies, 2249 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Melissa Etheridge’s Ex: I Can’t Live On $23K A Month (Original post)
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 OP
Demeter Apr 2012 #1
cindyperry2010 Apr 2012 #2
Rambis Apr 2012 #3
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #4
ParkieDem Apr 2012 #5
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #10
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2012 #6
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #12
treestar Apr 2012 #13
Initech Apr 2012 #7
qb Apr 2012 #8
ParkieDem Apr 2012 #11
yardwork Apr 2012 #9

Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:28 PM

1. She should try $23K a year

with a disabled adult in tow...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:30 PM

2. really some people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:33 PM

3. Never understood

I am used to a certain lifestyle therefore I am entitled to it even when circumstances change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rambis (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:35 PM

4. I'm with you. I never think I could be accustomed to a lifestyle where I was spending 120K a month.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:37 PM

5. I am surprised ...

... that Etheridge could even pay that amount.

I know she's a big star, but I didn't think she earned enough coin to live THAT lavish of a lifestyle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ParkieDem (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:07 PM

10. Yeah, that's $1.5 million/yr. Hard to believe Etheridge makes that much these days after taxes,

 

let alone that x 2 or more.

Maybe she has good investments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:40 PM

6. Putting on his Flame-proof suit, 1SBM asks ...

Why do significant others think that because they became accustom to a certain lifestyle based on their former S/O earnings/earning potential; they are somehow entitled to it after the relationship goes south?

Now, I'm in no way advocating no support or resignation to poverty after the lesser earning partner has sacrificed to advance the other's career; but come on!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 05:19 PM

12. 123K a month is not exactly poverty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 05:19 PM

13. Agreed. It's child support - the children should be able to share the lifestyle

of the wealthier parent. But it is easier said than done when it comes to applying that rule if the children live with the other parent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:52 PM

7. Go cry me a river. Try living on $12.50 an hour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:02 PM

8. According to my lawyer, spousal support is intended for longer marriages (15+ years)

during which one spouse gave up educational and employment opportunities in order to contribute to the marriage.
Child support? Definitely. But thousands in spousal support? Sheesh! Get a life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 05:17 PM

11. That's the way it is in Texas

There is NO alimony in Texas. Just "spousal support," which is VERY limited and only available if the marriage lasted 10+ years and the recipient spouse is quite destitute or disabled.

Of course, we're community property, too, which makes a big difference. Quite frankly, I've never understood lavish alimony/spousal support regimes in community property states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:04 PM

9. This is the idiot who loves Rick Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread