Geffen divorce: 99 problems, but is a big payout one?

Entertainment mogul David Geffen has filed for divorce from his husband David Armstrong (also known as Donovan Michaels) after less than two years of marriage. The petition was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court without a prenuptial agreement. This is not an ordinary divorce. It has stoked national attention with its mix of a $9 billion fortune, a 50-year age gap, a salacious back story on both sides, and the absence of a prenuptial agreement.

According to court filings and media reports, the two first connected through the sugar dating site SeekingArrangements.com, with Armstrong allegedly receiving payment for their initial meetings. In his filings, Armstrong now claims Geffen promised to support him for life, even suggesting he would inherit assets, such as his estimated $400 million yacht (with a reported estimated annual cost of $25 million to $30 million). Geffen, however, is reported to have dismissed the idea outright, calling the vessel a "money suck." The irony is almost lyrical, potentially echoing the Smiths' refrain, "you just haven't earned it yet, baby, you just haven't earned it, son."

Legally speaking, Armstrong faces steep hurdles. Community property rules and spousal support statutes severely restrict what he can obtain. His separate breach of contract lawsuit, modeled on the groundbreaking 1976 Marvin v. Marvin decision, may face challenges, given precedents requiring clear proof. This case illustrates the limits of recovery in short, high-asset marriages and the narrow reach of Marvin-type claims.

Community property: separate property protection

California Family Code Section 760 defines community property as all property acquired during marriage while domiciled in the state. Family Code Section 770 defines separate property as all property owned before marriage, all property received by gift or inheritance, and the rents, issues, and profits of separate property.

Geffen's fortune appears to be overwhelmingly separate. He has been retired for years. His income consists of investment returns, royalties from past work, real estate appreciation and art holdings. In In re Marriage of Lehman (1998) 18 Cal.4th 169, the California Supreme Court distinguished wages earned during marriage, which are community property, from passive returns on premarital assets, which remain separate.

Armstrong apparently did not contribute to Geffen's business interests or transform separate assets into community property. There is no evidence of asset commingling of the kind at issue in In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604. As a result, Geffen's billions should be protected by statute.

Spousal support: duration should control here

Armstrong's primary remedy is spousal support. Family Code Section 4320 requires courts to consider factors including the marital standard of living, earning capacities, obligations, needs and ability to pay.

Length of marriage can be decisive. Family Code Section 4336 provides that marriages of fewer than ten years are presumptively short-term. In such cases, courts often limit support to about one-half the length of the marriage. (See In re Marriage of Heistermann (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1195.) While courts retain discretion to award longer support in exceptional circumstances (see In re Marriage of Morrison (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437), such outcomes are rare. Because the Geffen-Armstrong marriage lasted only 20 months and Armstrong arguably is capable of self-support, any spousal support award may be limited to roughly one year of transition.

California policy favors self-sufficiency. Family Code Section 4330(b) reflects the principle from In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 705, allowing courts to give a "Gavron warning" requiring the supported spouse to become self-supporting within a reasonable time. In re Marriage of Richmond (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 352 approved step-down orders and termination dates tied to self-sufficiency. Family Code Section 4322 authorizes courts to deny support altogether if the supported spouse has a separate estate sufficient for proper support. And in In re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman (2000) 24 Cal.4th 39, the California Supreme Court confirmed there is no automatic entitlement to lifetime support.

Extraordinary wealth does not override these rules. A short marriage to a billionaire still means short duration support.

Marvin claims: why they may fail here

Armstrong has filed a separate civil action claiming Geffen promised lifetime support. He relies on Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, which held that unmarried cohabitants may enforce support or property sharing agreements if not based solely on sexual services. California courts have held that Marvin claims will survive a later marriage. (See Marriage of Stitt (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 579, 584.) Such claims may cover pre-marital cohabitation if supported by proof of agreement, but any commitments made during marriage are governed by the Family Code's rules on support and property division.

Here, reports confirm Geffen and Armstrong met in 2016. Their relationship included intermittent cohabitation that became full-time around 2020, continuing until marriage in 2023. Armstrong's lawsuit alleges that during this period he gave up his career and independence in reliance on Geffen's promises of lifetime support and shared assets. He further claims Geffen pressured him into "extensive, painful" cosmetic procedures to maintain a certain appearance.

Geffen forcefully rejects these claims. His legal team has described the lawsuit as "ludicrous and contrived," aimed at embarrassing him and extracting a windfall. They argue there was never any promise of lifetime support or asset-sharing and cast Armstrong instead as a reckless spender who burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars on designer clothes, cosmetic procedures, and lavish gifts. Geffen's filings further allege Armstrong concealed drug use and multiple affairs, even as Geffen funded his rehabilitation. They also note Armstrong continues to live rent-free in a New York apartment owned by Geffen while receiving monthly support, undermining the claim that he was abandoned and left destitute.

Whether Armstrong's allegations rise to the level of an enforceable contract is uncertain. In Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054, a Marvin claim survived where the plaintiff gave up her career in reliance on explicit promises. In Alderson v. Alderson 1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 450, decades of cohabitation and pooled finances supported an implied agreement. Armstrong offers no similar evidence of pooling assets, joint acquisitions, or corroborated promises.

Marvin requires clear proof of intent and reliance. Armstrong's case hinges on alleged oral promises of lifetime support, but Geffen denies making such commitments and points to his estate planning documents as evidence that no such agreement existed.

The promises Armstrong claims Geffen made to him may be too vague. Courts consistently reject indefinite assurances. Taylor v. Fields (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 653 rejected claims based on generalized statements of support. Whorton v. Dillingham (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 447 required clear proof of contract, not companionship. Jones v. Daly (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 500 refused to enforce a contract where consideration was "lover services." Bergen v. Wood (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 854 required specific evidence of contractual intent.

Even Michelle Triola Marvin, whose case created the doctrine, ultimately recovered nothing because she could not prove a contract. Armstrong may have pled enough to survive demurrer for the cohabitation years, but prevailing on his claims would require clear proof of mutual intent and reliance - both of which may be lacking.

Lessons for practitioners

This case reminds family lawyers to spell it out for their clients: Passive investment income and premarital assets stay separate; short marriages usually mean short support; even when there is pre-marriage cohabitation Marvin claims require clear proof of contract and reliance; and the Family Code controls property and support rights after marriage. The best protection for partners is a well-drafted prenuptial agreement that avoids costly litigation later.

Conclusion

Despite the lurid headlines and Geffen's billionaire status, his legal exposure may be minimal. Armstrong may secure a year of transitional support, but his Marvin claim is unlikely to open the vault without clear evidence of an enforceable agreement. The takeaway is simple. California family law runs on statute, precedent, and proof, not on wealth or celebrity. Without commingling, without duration, and without contracts, recovery is limited.

Let me repeat it because it bears repeating: Draft the prenup now, avoid the courtroom later.