The Canadian supermodel who famously said she doesn’t wake up for less
than $10,000 a day is now seeking child support for her son, who apparently
needs close to $1,500 per day.
According to court papers filed earlier this year by Canadian supermodel
Linda Evangelista, François-Henri Pinault, the French billionaire
fashion CEO now married to actress Salma Hayek, is the biological father
of her five year old son, Augustin James, “Augie.” Pinault also
has two children from a previous marriage, and a daughter, Valentina,
age 3, with Hayek. Last week marked the beginning of a contentious trial
in a Manhattan family court to determine the amount of child support Pinault
will be required to pay Evangelista.
It’s Going to Get Ugly
The relationship between Evangelista and Pinault has been strained for
some time. According to Evangelista’s lawyers, when informed that
the supermodel was pregnant with his child, Pinault responded by suggesting
the she have an abortion. Responding to rumors that he suggested the pregnancy
be terminated, Pinault testified in court last week that though he was
“not involved in the decision” to have the child and was not
in a position to parent the child, he nevertheless assured Evangelista
that he would “recognize the baby.”
Evangelista is now seeking $46,000/month in child support for Augustin.
According to the
Post, this amount includes up to $16,000 for armed ex-NYPD detective chauffeurs
and $7,000 for live-in nannies. Evangelista has paid almost all of Augustin’s
expenses since his birth. However, her usual $1.8 million/year income
took a severe hit last year when a major contract with L’Oreal ended.
According to the
Post, the judge in the matter acknowledged that there are certain extraordinary
expenses that may be a part of raising a child in the spotlight and recognized
that Evangelista’s work schedule, which she testified can sometimes
include 16-hour days, must also be considered.
Reasonable or Ridiculous?
When it comes to child support, there’s a thin line between reasonable
and ridiculous. After all, reasonable is relative, and if you’re accustomed
to spending $46,000 on your child per month, as Evangelista claims, the
lines might tend to get blurred.
Although $46,000/month may sound preposterous to some, there are two factors
that support Evangelista’s claim for such hefty child support. First,
according to a recent estimation by Forbes, Pinault’s luxury goods
empire is reportedly worth $13 billion, and he made $5.4 million in 2010
alone. In New York, where court documents were filed, the law requires
a support payor to pay 17% of his earnings in child support. For Pinault,
this would mean $920,000/year or almost $77,000/month. In light of this
fact, Pinault would make out well if he was compelled to pay a measly $46,000.
In Ontario, where the support payor’s income is over $150,000, the
process for determining child support differs somewhat. s. 4 of the
Child Support Guidelines (CSG) states that:
4.Where the income of the parent or spouse against whom an order for the
support of a child is sought is over $150,000, the amount of an order
for the support of a child is,(a) the amount determined under section 3; or
(b) if the court considers that amount to be inappropriate,
(i) in respect of the first $150,000 of the parent’s or spouse’s
income, the amount set out in the table for the number of children under
the age of majority to whom the order relates,(ii) in respect of the balance of the parent’s or spouse’s income,
the amount that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the
condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are
entitled to support and the financial ability of each parent or spouse
to contribute to the support of the children, and(iii) the amount, if any, determined under section 7
This means that the support payor will either have to pay the table amount,
or where the judge deems appropriate, the court may use its discretion
to determine support having regard to the condition, means, needs and
other circumstances of the child/children entitled to support.
Second, in this instance, there exists a comparator group against which
“reasonable” child support can be measured: Pinault’s other
young child, Valentina. Pinault has been forced to disclose details of
the extravagant lifestyle he provides Valentina, including how the child
was taken on a 12-day holiday to Bora Bora at a cost of more than $50,000,
and how a $12-million Los Angeles home is held in trust for the child.
The fact that Pinault spends so lavishly on his other child diminishes,
somewhat, his argument ridiculing the sum proposed by Evangelista. Nevertheless,
the judge dismissed the $7,500 the supermodel was seeking for monthly
vacation expenses.
In Ontario, special or extraordinary expenses, such as child care expenses
incurred as a result of the custodial parent’s employment or extraordinary
expenses for extra-curricular activities are dealt with under s. 7 of the
CSG. On the request of the applicant, the court may provide for an amount
to cover special or extraordinary expenses, taking into account the necessity
of the expenses in relation to the child’s best interests, the reasonableness
of the expenses in relation to the means of the parents, and the spending
pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation.
Although the amount claimed by Evangelista may appear ridiculous and outrageous
to some, it would not be surprising if young Augustin ended up with $46,000/month
in support. After all, in October 2010, billionaire Kirk Kerkorian was
ordered to pay $10.25 million in back child support despite the fact that
his ex-wife’s child wasn’t Kerkorian’s biological daughter.
The 93-year old, who has a net worth of approximately $3.1 billion, was
also ordered to pay $100,000/month. The case between Evangelista and Pinault
settled for an undisclosed amount.