I have a feeling that Mel Gibson is somewhere blasting off racially tinged strings of profanity someplace right now, and not simply because he happens to be in one of his “moods.”
The actor just finalized his divorce from Robyn Moore, his wife of thirty years and mother of his seven children, with what Hollywood pundits are calling the largest settlement in history — half of Gibson’s $850 million worth and then some.
Because the couple didn’t have a prenuptial agreement, Robyn, 55, was legally entitled to half of everything he earned during their marriage.
Among Gibson’s estimated assets: more than $600 million grossed by The Passion of the Christ alone; $100-plus million in real estate investments worldwide (he bought an island in Fiji for $15 million in 2005); and $75 million for film and TV projects for which Gibson, 55, executive produced.
It appears some of his wealth has already been transferred to Robyn, in particular two Malibu homes worth a combined $22.5 million. As for film residuals, Robyn is entitled to half of every future check Gibson receives for the rest of his life.
California is quirky when it comes to laws about marriage and divorce so the state’s divorce settlements can often be quite extended, and the exorbitant wealth of some of Hollywood stars tends to give a whole new meaning to the word “half.” But half of everything he earns forever? Staying with a man for 30 years and bearing seven children with him is no small thing and I’m sure she deserves to never worry about money ever again, but should anyone be entitled to that type of money? Should the law grant spouses half during a divorce no matter what?