My heart goes out to this guy. Talk about unfair.

Cleese hits the tour trail to pay for divorce

The British star had to give Alyce Faye Eichelberger $12 million (£8 million) in cash and assets - including a New York apartment, a London property, and a share in a beach house in California - on top of another $918,000 (£612,000) annually for the next seven years.

Cleese made no secret of his anger at the judge's decision, saying at the time of the divorce in August (09), that Eichelberger's children would get more than his if they both died.

Now, Cleese has decided to open a one-man show in Oslo, Norway in a bid to recoup some of his lost wealth.

And the 69 year old takes aim at his ex in an interview with a Norwegian newspaper, admitting he would rather be enjoying his retirement than hitting the tour trail to earn cash.

He says, "I get angry that I have to pack my trunk, just to go away to make money.

"That I, at my age, would have to plan my life anew to pay her all the money she is to get for the next seven years - well, it irritates me.

"I'd rather have been drinking coffee, reading books and writing. I can't afford that now."

The show, entitled A Ludicrous Evening with John Cleese..., will run for seven nights in Oslo, before heading to the U.S.

http://www.ireland.com/stylebeauty/Clee ... ws/1050031

pre-nup

say it with me now:

pre-nup!

But Chud seriously,

what fucking Judge gets an elderly man, takes all his shit, gives it to the divorcee thus forcing the guy who's sixtyfuckin nine!! out on the road to pay for this shit?? for the next seven fuckin years?? it's a disgrace..really is. Though it should be pointed out she used the same lawyer as that heather mills bitch did against Paul mcCartney.

No justice in the world.

That happens all the fucking time.

She's a fucking weapon. I hope she has nothing but bad luck with that money. Cunt.

Is this true, Dime? If so, that's bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-nuptial_agreement

"As of 2007, England and Wales do not enforce prenuptial agreements, but agreements may be upheld at the judge's discretion. These countries also do not have a provision for marital regimes."

This is a shame. Although it is few & far between... it is possible to have an actual union of marriage.. based on honest love, communication, and trust. A pre-nuptial agreement to me; equates to a lack of trust- & choosing the wrong person for such an immense commitment. (Some may disagree.. but that's okay).

I've always liked John Cleese, his comedy has brought tears to my eyes many times over the years... hope all turns out for him.

918k a year is a bit over the top.

although splitting up the assets as they stand right now, that's to be expected. i mean, you say takes ALL his shit, where did it say all his shit? are you sure it's not half his shit?

I don't know anything about this but if she got significantly more than half of his wealth that is complete fucking bullshit.

The Oscar nominated comedy actor is giving his former wife £8 million in cash and assets which include an apartment in New York, a £2 million mews house in fashionable Holland Park in west London, and half a beach house in Santa Barbara in California which is yet to be sold.

Ms Faye Eichelberger, an American psychotherapist, will also receive £600,000 a year for seven years. The papers to finalise the financial settlement were lodged in the courts in California last week.

Cleese, 70, who is in the New Forest writing a barbed one man show to be called Alimony Tour Year One, has revealed his anger at the size of the divorce settlement which will make his former wife, who he was married to for 16 years, richer than him.

He said: “What I find so unfair is that if we both died today, her children would get much more than mine.”(thats just out and out unfair and disgusting!!) He added: “At least I will know in future if a I go out with a lady they will not be after me for my money.” When he met her in 1990 she was living in a third floor council flat in London with two sons from a previous marriage.

His former wife, who is 64, was represented in the legal negotiations by Fiona Shackleton, who is known as the Steel Magnolia because of her sharp negotiating skills. She also acted for the Prince of Wales and Sir Paul McCartney in their respective divorces.

In her divorce testimony, she claimed Cleese was a “world-renowned celebrity” and she was used to “being entertained by royalty and dignitaries in castles”. She claimed half the Monty Python star’s earnings since their 1992 wedding, half his nine properties, and £900,000 a year to live on.

In March a judge in America declared her claim was “excessive” and reduced the interim payments he had been paying from £106,000 a month to £57,000.

Michael Winner, the former film director and acerbic restaurant critic who has been Cleese’s closest friend for 30 years, said: “It is an extraordinary world which means John is left with much less than his former wife even though he is the star who did all the work. The settlement defies human belief. John is extremely cross about it and I don’t blame him. The settlement comes after two years of harrowing legal argument.”

Mr Winner, who accompanied the couple on their honeymoon to St Lucia in 1992, said: “John has worked all his life and will now have to continue working because he has seen a huge chunk of what he has worked for going to his former wife who he rescued from a council flat.”

Cleese, who is also working on a film script, added: “I got off lightly. Think what I’d have had to pay Alyce if she had contributed anything to the relationship.”

In a recent interview the actor said: “In my 70th year I will still be spending two months a year doing work that is of no interest to me and which is probably slightly spiritually depleting in order to feed the beast.”’

He has remained friends with his first wife, Connie Booth, who co-wrote and starred in Fawlty Towers and the American actress Barbara Trentham. He has two grown-up daughters with his first two wives. Last year he sold his ranch in California to help pay for the divorce.

Comparing the split with that from his previous wives, he said: "My two other divorces were very peaceful affairs." The terms of Cleese’s divorce from Miss Booth - they were married for ten years - and had a daughter were not made public. His divorce from Miss Trentham, with whom he also had a daughter, cost him £2.5million in 1988.

A friend of Cleese said: “He is relieved it is almost at an end and just wants to move on.”

i honestly think any payments that aren't for the kids, should not exist. splitting the wealth as it stands, ok, i buy that, but yearly payments, above and beyond child support of some sort? thats just blatantly unfair.

900,000 grand a year! for 7 years! on top of 12 million and three properties?? fuck me that poor guys after getting fucked royally. And that he has to now go on tour to consolidate his income to pay for it is purely disgusting. My heart goes out to him, it's terrible.

This is why i wonder why gays WANT marriage.

OK, I'm shocked this hasn't been said yet:

1) We have NO idea what his net worth is, what his annual income is from royalties, etc. We have NO idea. You just take the article at face value that he is now broke and has to work to pay his bills.

2) Given #1, we have no idea why it is necessary for him to tour to pay off his ex wife. I know of no country where they award an ex more than 100% of someone's net worth and thus they have to go work in order to pay it off.

More than likely, he is fucking insanely rich and is just bitching having to give up millions to a woman he hates. That article is hilarious and the "my heart goes out to him" shit is lol funny. He isn't touring to put food on the table...this is a very rich man. He makes millions a year (since he is paying out $1 million in spousal support). The statement that her kids will get more than his kids could mean a million things...maybe she is from a rich family and they will inherit money outside of this support. Who the fuck knows.

Let's be clear - I am all for the prenup and I think this stuff is absurd. But let's not get carried away here.

P.S. He's a fucking idiot for getting married two times and thinking this one will work. Just live with the person and love them after you've fucked it up the first two times, especially if it's going to cost you 10's of millions.

If you're the plaintiff in divorce or libel proceedings, it appears that the UK is your best bet.

I don't think pre-nups are a sign of a lack of trust. Nobody knows what the future will hold, and it's perfectly fair to sign an agreement saying if we split we each take what's ours.

Trade, she brought fucking nothing to the marriage. She was living in public housing when he met her. What fucking right does she have to anything of his? it's wrong.

Well, it kind of is. Don't get me wrong, it's completely understandable in this day and age but to sign a legal document to insure possessions/finance in the event of a split is pretty much by definition a sign of a lack of trust.

Haha...that's a totally different argument. However, the argument would be that she spent the last 15 or 20 years in a "partnership" and it's now over.

You do know that marriage is a legal contract sharing assets, right? (I'm being simplistic, it also helps detail rights with children, hospital visits, etc.) You don't need to be married to spend the rest of your life together in heart pounding love.

Re: prenups, there is nothing wrong with them. Nothing. It basically says "if this ends up being wrong, you shouldn't get my shit". If it ends up being right, like we think it will be, you'll get everything. What's the problem with that?

I disagree...I think the word "trust" is the wrong word. I have had many relationships (many friendships) where I had 100% trust in someone and they ended up fucking me. So, I might go into a prenup with 100% trust. It basically just says I really don't know the future, like Chud says. If the future ends up us being together, forever, this piece of paper means NOTHING. If we do breakup, then we should have had this piece of paper to start with. Why does the prenup effect anything in a happy/expected scenario? It's like having car insurance. I don't expect to total my car but if I do I'd like to have someone else pay for it and not get wiped out. If I don't, then it's no big deal. Actually, it's even less than that because there is no "cost" for the prenup besides lawyer costs.