Poll of the Day > Kelly Clarkson gets to KEEP her HOME but her Ex REFUSES to LEAVE! Is She Cruel?

(+) Yeah! (+)

39 y/o Superstar, Kelly Clarkson has won an important judgement today when a judge ruled that she gets to KEEP her 10.4 MILLION Montana Ranch of which SHE bought in 2019 but her bitter ex-husband, Brandon Blackstock REFUSES TO LEAVE despite getting 200,000 a MONTH from her in spousal and child support!!

The Voice Coach has been fighting him over the property durign the settlement as a prenup stated she would get to keep it if they divorced

he argued that because the home was purchased during their marriage, he has a right to it.

But she is the sole person on the title and states in their signed prenum she gets to keep everything she bought alone during their marriage and it is now legally declared

To complicate things, Blackstock has been living at this ranch and does not want to leave it because he LOVES the place and it is his primary residence but Clarkson wants to SELL it as she plans to move with the kids to Los Angeles where she is filming her popular talk show and the Voice

Blackstock wanted HALF of EVERYTHING but a judge stopped his request..

Kelly is obviously more successful with a singing career, a talk show and teh voice worth over 45 million

It was claimed earlier as well that Kelly let out a scream of joy with fellow coaches Blake Shelton and Ariana Grande when she learned the prenup was upheld and her divorce was ending finally

Shelton also cut ties with him who had managed him for a number of years. Blackstock is the grandson of country superstar and actress, Reba Mcintyre

Do you think Kelly is being cruel to this guy?

https://i.imgur.com/otGCoE9.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/5UGsPAp.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ngXdybZ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/QaXGUtT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0X49toh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/juKJNu5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/85pnJPd.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/covVsto.jpg
---

I know I should want to support the guy because it's a rare instance of a guy benefiting from a divorce, but... I mean, c'mon, really? The dude is being greedy.

It's also a reminder why the wealthy shouldn't marry the non-wealthy.

---

If the guy was the wealthier one, this would've gone the opposite way, so I voted yes in the interest of equality.

mrduckbear posted...

39 y/o Superstar, Kelly Clarkson has won an important judgement today when a judge ruled that she gets to KEEP her 10.4 MILLION Montana Ranch of which SHE bought in 2019

It doesn't matter who bought it. They were married at the time. She doesn't just get to claim a huge chunk of her income as "hers alone". That's never been how it's fucking worked.

but her bitter ex-husband, Brandon Blackstock REFUSES TO LEAVE despite getting 200,000 a MONTH from her in spousal and child support!!

Division of marital assets is separate from child support and alimony.
Men for decades have been told just that, but when the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly it's all shock and horror.

The Voice Coach has been fighting him over the property durign the settlement as a prenup stated she would get to keep it if they divorced

How the fuck did a prenup (pre- as in, prior to the marriage) specify the division of an asset that wasn't even owned at the time, since she bought it after they were married?
How the hell was this pre-nup not thrown out of court? Oh...right...

he argued that because the home was purchased during their marriage, he has a right to it.

Blackstock wanted HALF of EVERYTHING but a judge stopped his request..

That's how it works, yeah.

But she is the sole person on the title and states in their signed prenum she gets to keep everything she bought alone during their marriage and it is now legally declared

Well, sounds like a lot of guys need to start writing prenups this way and citing this case as legal precedent... Of course, judges won't rule the same for them, though...

Nope fuck that guy. He gets the same energy that vindictive women get from me. I hate how the system handles divorces. It's all about greed and vengefulness.

---

If she's planning on selling it anyway, she might as well sell it to him. At $200k a month, he could pretty comfortably pay down a 10-year mortgage on that.

---

streamofthesky posted...

If the guy was the wealthier one, this would've gone the opposite way, so I voted yes in the interest of equality.

This made me lol for real. You don't care about equality. Every single topic about man/woman relationship and marriage issues you always take the man's side. We can all be sure if it was the woman doing this crap you'd be whining about how much of a greedy gold digger she is. You know you're really far gone when Zeus is making much more sense than you.

---

mrduckbear posted...

Yes. can't she see how she's ruining this guy's life by taking away his only home he's known? Where's her sympathy

If that were true, going by the article, he is at most 2.

---

Celebrity problems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAA1xgTTw9w

---

mrduckbear posted...

taking away his only home he's known

Montana Ranch of which SHE bought in 2019

Was Brandon already living in it when Kelly bought it?
Had he been homeless his entire life prior to 2019?


---

I voted no. With the amount hes getting, hes should definitely be happy. I would be. Haha. And they upheld the prenup, which is also good Plus, shes the only one on the title, so All good

streamofthesky posted...

If the guy was the wealthier one, this would've gone the opposite way, so I voted yes in the interest of equality.

Who knows? Id personally feel the same it it were the opposite. If he was the only one on the title, and gave her $200,000, Id vote no, just like I did this time

streamofthesky posted...

How the fuck did a prenup (pre- as in, prior to the marriage) specify the division of an asset that wasn't even owned at the time, since she bought it after they were married?
How the hell was this pre-nup not thrown out of court? Oh...right...

You can do that. Thats one of the reasons to get a pre-nup It depends on how it was stated in the pre-nup

streamofthesky posted...

That's how it works, yeah.

True Unless there is a valid pre-nip

streamofthesky posted...

Well, sounds like a lot of guys need to start writing prenups this way and citing this case as legal precedent... Of course, judges won't rule the same for them, though...

Honestly, everybody should have already been getting pre-nups. But people rarely want to. And some that want one get guilted out of it by their partner And they actually might. You dont know every court ruling on that. And if they get it written well, and make sure its valid (which can get thrown out depending on a variety of things, and especially things not planned for), it can work the way it should And apparently, more guys are here tying them

adjl posted...

If she's planning on selling it anyway, she might as well sell it to him. At $200k a month, he could pretty comfortably pay down a 10-year mortgage on that.

This could work
---

He's clearly in wrong. There's also no reason not to give it to him if she's planning on selling it anyway with her already big net worth. He's probably lying about it meaning so much to him though.
---

MeteoricBurst posted...

This made me lol for real. You don't care about equality. Every single topic about man/woman relationship and marriage issues you always take the man's side. We can all be sure if it was the woman doing this crap you'd be whining about how much of a greedy gold digger she is. You know you're really far gone when Zeus is making much more sense than you.

You know you've really lost the script when attacking Zeus, and this directly follows a diatribe where you hypocritically accuse somebody of always supporting one gender when that's what you do, which makes the whole thing ring hollow and explains *why* you're stuck trying to cast shade at poor ol' Zeus while you desperately grasp at straws in an attempt to walk across the street on divorce rulings simply because the genders are reversed. A hypocrisy, by the way, I wouldn't have bothered taking you to task for if you hadn't dragged my name through your lips.


---

Seems pretty clear cut if they had a prenup. Seems more like he's being greedy and doesn't want to abide by the agreement since her career got even more lucrative after they married. Almost like he wants to be a lil leach.

---

Revelation34 posted...

He's clearly in wrong. There's also no reason not to give it to him if she's planning on selling it anyway with her already big net worth. He's probably lying about it meaning so much to him though.

He can buy it from her if he wants it. He just needs to pony up $10.4mil

---

Jen0125 posted...

He can buy it from her if he wants it. He just needs to pony up $10.4mil

It would take him less than 6 years if he paid $150,000 out of the $200,000 he gets a month So, its very doable

Or if he did a 30 year plan, its less than a quarter of the money he gets a month
---

Zeus posted...

You know you've really lost the script when attacking Zeus, and this directly follows a diatribe where you hypocritically accuse somebody of always supporting one gender when that's what you do, which makes the whole thing ring hollow and explains *why* you're stuck trying to cast shade at poor ol' Zeus while you desperately grasp at straws in an attempt to walk across the street on divorce rulings simply because the genders are reversed. A hypocrisy, by the way, I wouldn't have bothered taking you to task for if you hadn't dragged my name through your lips.

Dude everyone knows you're a parody account. Or worse a parody person. And stream is a hypocrite because if Kelly was the one acting like that instead of her husband he would be chewing her to bits. Like he always does with women. And she would deserve it too. So no, based on his posting history he doesn't stand for equality at all, only when men get the bad end. I'd also like you to point out where I always support one gender over the other. If anything I'm too blunt towards both which is why I've gotten on the bad side of both the men and women on here. As usual you're full of it, Mr "left leaning centrist".

---

LinkPizza posted...

It would take him less than 6 years if he paid $150,000 out of the $200,000 he gets a month So, its very doable

Or if he did a 30 year plan, its less than a quarter of the money he gets a month

Hooray, we saved the day!

---

LinkPizza posted...

It would take him less than 6 years if he paid $150,000 out of the $200,000 he gets a month So, its very doable

Or if he did a 30 year plan, its less than a quarter of the money he gets a month

There is still interest to consider, since presumably he's not in a position to buy it outright, but it would still be very easily achievable in 10 years (and that's likely the period his bank would give him). That, or he could cut a deal wherein she gave it to him outright, but his support payments were slashed to 50k/month for the first 6-7 years to "pay it off" without incurring interest (though that would basically be an interest-free $10M loan, which is a big ask). Either way, he could very easily buy the house himself if he really wants it and still have enough money left over to live in considerable luxury. Wanting it for free is just being greedy and entitled.

---

adjl posted...

There is still interest to consider, since presumably he's not in a position to buy it outright, but it would still be very easily achievable in 10 years (and that's likely the period his bank would give him). That, or he could cut a deal wherein she gave it to him outright, but his support payments were slashed to 50k/month for the first 6-7 years to "pay it off" without incurring interest (though that would basically be an interest-free $10M loan, which is a big ask). Either way, he could very easily buy the house himself if he really wants it and still have enough money left over to live in considerable luxury. Wanting it for free is just being greedy and entitled.

I wasnt sure how much interest would be. Thats why I just guesstimated But yeah. I mean, he can easily buy it himself. And everybody wins. He just wants to be the sole winner here
---

LinkPizza posted...

I wasnt sure how much interest would be. Thats why I just guesstimated But yeah. I mean, he can easily buy it himself. And everybody wins. He just wants to be the sole winner here

I mean, even if we use a very generous estimate of 5% interest and completely ignore any progress he makes on the principal (which is not how anything works, but it simplifies the math in exchange for considerably overestimating the total), that brings the grand total to $17.1 million. Over 10 years, that would be $142,500 per month, which is easily affordable on what he's making. Expand that to 20 years, and he's looking at a total of $27.9 million, which would require $116k per month, for an even more affordable option.

Of course, spending 60-75% of your income on a mortgage generally isn't good financial sense, but again, I've very generously overestimated these to illustrate the point, and it's not like he won't still have enough left over to live comfortably. If he's bent on keeping that house, it's very doable for him to do that without needing to be given it.

---

Jen0125 posted...

He can buy it from her if he wants it. He just needs to pony up $10.4mil

My post still stands.
---

I'm still trying to wrap my head around him getting child support when she got custody of the kids.

---

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

I'm still trying to wrap my head around him getting child support when she got custody of the kids.

Duckbear being duckbear again probably.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Duckbear being duckbear again probably.

No, that's actually part of the settlement.

---

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

No, that's actually part of the settlement.

Then I have no idea.
---

"Child support" may be for the sake of supporting him having the kids periodically, not knowing the exact details of the custody arrangement. There's going to be some effort to ensure that he isn't so financially disadvantaged as to automatically become the kids' least favourite parent (though acting like a petulant toddler over the divorce isn't helping his case there), and to that end, I can see the courts awarding him enough money to at least afford a decent house. $200k/month is a pretty ridiculous figure, though, regardless of how you slice it.

---

adjl posted...

"Child support" may be for the sake of supporting him having the kids periodically, not knowing the exact details of the custody arrangement. There's going to be some effort to ensure that he isn't so financially disadvantaged as to automatically become the kids' least favourite parent (though acting like a petulant toddler over the divorce isn't helping his case there), and to that end, I can see the courts awarding him enough money to at least afford a decent house. $200k/month is a pretty ridiculous figure, though, regardless of how you slice it.

Of course, if that includes flying the kids from California to Montana every couple weeks, that would actually put a half-decent dent in the figure.

Reminds me of Chris Rock's "And I'm not saying he shoulda killed her...but I understand!" bit about OJ and Nicole.

---