Last week, I was surprised to learn that Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan’s divorce has still not been finalized or settled. They ended up bifurcating their divorce so they’re both “legally single” right now (and engaged to other people), but they are still fighting about money. Specifically, the Magic Mike money. Channing has now starred in and produced three Magic Mike movies, and the whole franchise is based on his own experiences as a stripper in Florida. Beyond the film franchise, there are mega-lucrative offshoots like the Magic Mike Live shows in Vegas and London. While Channing isn’t going to become a billionaire from the Magic Mike intellectual property, he’s definitely made a significant amount of money from it. Jenna seems to be arguing that everything Magic Mike-related needs to be split in half, since he developed the first film during their marriage and put their “community money” into the project. Their money bickering has led to some back-and-forth briefings to People Magazine.
Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan are entangled in an ongoing legal battle more than six years after announcing their split. The former couple is at odds over a financial settlement that includes profits from Tatum’s Magic Mike franchise, and they have both included each other on a “preliminary witness list” for a trial, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE. The key issues that will be addressed, per the documents, are division of property, reimbursement claims, support, breach of fiduciary duty and attorneys’ fees.
“Jenna is just looking for a fair resolution of community assets of the marriage, under California State Law,” a rep for the actress tells PEOPLE. “Jenna wants to reach a final determination and close this chapter on her life as soon as possible.” The former couple has “been trying to settle for over five years and have gone to many settlement conferences during that time,” the rep adds.
A source close to Tatum maintains to PEOPLE the reason the legal battle has “dragged on is because Jenna’s actions and claims continuously contradict themselves.” The source adds, “She says she wants a fair settlement but is ignoring all post-separation work Channing and his partners have done to enhance Magic Mike. She keeps stalling negotiations, but says she wants to resolve this.”
In light of the filing, another insider tells PEOPLE that while Dewan, 43, has “clearly moved on, she’d like for all the doors to close and for her divorce to be finalized. She’s not dragging this on because she wants to or because she’s greedy,” the insider said. The source close to Tatum says the actor, also 43, “just wants to move on and wants [Dewan] to move on with her new life as well.”
Dewan is currently engaged to Steve Kazee, and the insider notes that she wants everything between her and Tatum “settled before she gets married again,” despite the fact that both she and Tatum were declared legally single by a judge in November 2019.
Per the filings (which People Mag summarizes), Jenna wants half of everything related to the Magic Mike IP and that’s their biggest and most significant argument. That’s largely why this issue is now going to trial – Jenna wants half of everything related to Magic Mike, even the Magic Mike stuff developed years after their separation. Jenna has also claimed that Channing has “collected one hundred percent of the profits” from Magic Mike after their separation. Oh, and Channing has Steven Soderbergh on his witness list – Soderbergh directed the first and third Magic Mike films and Soderbergh helped develop the IP. This is super-interesting to me! I can see why they’re going to trial and why they need someone neutral to figure out what’s fair and who owns what.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- World Premiere of 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' at Odeon Leicester Square in London.,Image: 349860505, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Channing Tatum & Jenna Dewan, Credit line: – / Wenn / Avalon
-
- Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan attend the ‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle’ world film premiere, London, UK,Image: 509588585, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS- Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: James Shaw/Retna / Avalon
-
- Channing Tatum at the Magic Mike Live Press Night at the Hippodrome Casino, London, England. 28th November 2018. – -,Image: 534793116, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JW / Bang Showbiz / Avalon
-
- Channing Tatum at the Magic Mike Live Press Night at the Hippodrome Casino, London, England. 28th November 2018. – -,Image: 534793152, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JW / Bang Showbiz / Avalon
-
- BEVERLY HILLS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA – APRIL 09: Jenna Dewan arrives at the Fashion Trust U.S. Awards 2024 held at a Private Residence on April 9, 2024 in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 863846899, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Jenna Dewan, Credit line: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
-
- BEVERLY HILLS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA – APRIL 09: Jenna Dewan arrives at the Fashion Trust U.S. Awards 2024 held at a Private Residence on April 9, 2024 in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 863847095, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Jenna Dewan, Credit line: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
No, she kind of does sound greedy. Half of something she didn’t work on sounds excessive.
Why?
Who knows what she did for him during this time that enabled him to go off and make that movie? Maybe she supported him for years before he made that money. Maybe she paid the bills and maintained the properties while he made it. Maybe she threw the parties that facilitated the connections that enabled him to get the movie made in the first place.
Why’s she greedy for wanting half? The thing is when you share your life with someone, particularly someone who works in the same business with you OR doesn’t work at all so they can simply throw themselves into your line of work as needed, you really can’t say you did something entirely on your own. It’s a bit like people who insist they don’t owe the government taxes but expect a fire department to show up when they have a fire, etc.
Because not all of the MM projects were developed during the marriage. I’m sorry but I don’t think she’s entitled to half of everything that may come out of an idea he developed while they were married at any given time in the future after they’ve separated.
The use of “community money” toe sounds a bit like making an investment in a startup….and if your startup blows up big, you have those shares until you decide to cash out. If you invest because they are making product A and they then use their success from product A to market their next product B….your investment grows also. No company is going to say well, you only invested in product A, product B profits are ours. MM2&3 were only possible because of MM1, so yeah, I think she is entitled to something. Is it half? I don’t know…but I don’t think she’s greedy for wanting ongoing profits from a product that she supported financially.
@cate Actually, companies fight over that all the time. A lot of IP law is exactly fighting over whether product A & product B come from the same idea or if there is a material difference between them making each “original and unique.”
She is actually right per the divorce laws in California. My aunt had to split everything 50/50, he hadn’t earned a penny. Separation is not a divorce they were still legally married and they each had access to representation to have a prenuptial agreement or a separation agreement in place. Why is she deemed greedy for demanding what should legally be hers? Women are always shamed for ask for what they are legally entitled to.
She’s entitled to whatever the law says she’s entitled to – whether she’s greedy or not is irrelevant. Whatever Channing could do, work on, develop, he could while she was preggers and was staying home and taking care of baby/babies that they wanted together and she had to put her career on pause for that, and that also has value – that is at least half of what he earned during that time because they were together and married.
I don’t think so. For all we know, she said in passing one day that his experiences as a stripper might make a cute movie and that’s where he got the idea.
She should get a good bit more than nothing, but there was a lot of new Channing work done after the split, so half hardly seems fair.
Nah – she is not entitled to things developed after they split. That’s unfair and greedy. I understand wanting half of what was made while they were together – but half of all of his earning in perpetuity?? Nope.
This- this is the only reasonable answer.
Agree ! Why should she get half of the money he made AFTER they split?
Let’s say you and your husband write a novel together and then you split up. After the split he keeps writing sequels. Are you entitled to any of the profits?
No, because you’re no longer contributing to the books. If you wanted to write your own sequels, I’m sure there’s a way.
Possibly, if the source material was in some part your creation and they used the same characters and universe.
It sounds as though Jenna is saying that it’s about shared funds being used on the project, which doesn’t feel the same. If that’s ignoring a role she played in the development of that story and those characters, then she may be in the right. The only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know the particulars and I’m not jumping on the gold-digger trope train because it’s often used against those who don’t deserve it.
I don’t understand how it would work, logically. If she gets half of movie #1 because it was made while they were married, what happens if he’s married to someone else when movie #2 is made? Does wife #1 get half of movie #2, and wife #2 should ALSO gets half of movie #2 (by the same logic), so that the person who actually made the movie (the husband) gets nothing? I’m all for spousal rights, but that seems mixed up.
Intellectual property rights are a type of property having to do with the idea/creation. Because MM was created and developed during the first marriage with community property funds, both spouses own an equal portion of the rights. If he is remarried when a later movie is made, the new spouse isn’t entitled to any IP rights, because the idea was already created during the first marriage. The new spouse might be entitled to 1/2 of his earnings from the later movie if they split and IF they do not have a prenup in place.
I agree, her share of what was done while they were together, not post separation. It’s got to be a decent chunk of money either way.
Add me to those who think she is greedy for wanting profits from projects after they divorced.
But here’s the thing – they are NOT divorced yet. If they had divorced when they separated, she would likely not have any claim on anything. But since this has dragged out without seemingly any temporary orders on how the proceeds from this property would work, then she likely *is* entitled to her share. I’m a family law attorney in Texas, not California, but both are community property states. I am flabbergasted that they didn’t get temporary orders when they first separated to resolve this issue of what happened to income earned on community IP after the date of separation, but if they didn’t, then she is entitled to her share and he needs to file a grievance against his attorney. HE also shouldn’t have developed the 3rd film while this was still open, but again, that’s on him, not her.
Agree she’s greedy. He’s not perfect either but There’s always something about her that’s Off.
They are divorced. He’s engaged and she’s with someone else, I think she had a baby but they’re still working on financial settlement , like the Pitt/Jolie divorce.
@MS DARCY. Would the date of the separation put an end date of either party being obligated to share of any new assets or equity?
She should get half of what he made from the first two movies.
She does sound greedy, shes gonna be fine and will still get a lot. Shes engaged too, so wouldnt it be easier to just close this chapter.
I’m very interested to see how this unfolds. It could become precedent for similar situations in the future with other couples. I imagine a good bit of “brainstorming” and working through this type of development happens at home bouncing ideas around with your partner. So she very well could have contributed more than we realize and the fact that he used money that was also hers to get the ball rolling entitles her to a portion, I would think. Maybe not HALF, but something?
I think this has happened in Hollywood divorces before where the ex-wife will get half of all profits made from a franchise developed whilst still married and any new material post-divorce. I can’t think of any names but I think Steven Spielberg’s ex-wife might have been someone who managed to get this settlement because of no proper pre-nup.
Yeah, Hollywood knows how to deal with these issues when it comes to film franchises. The WGA has arbitration rules about how much old vs new material is in a film. I’m sure it’s the live shows that are the issue. How much money would Channing have gotten if he’d just licensed the Magic Mike name versus how much he got for having developed and worked on the show. That’s what the court is going to figure out.
I also think Hollywood has rules on who gets credit for what input into a movie’s development– but then shouldn’t THAT be her avenue to recover money? If she worked as a producer, or writer, or whatever, she should get it whether married to him or not. I don’t understand why she would entitled by virtue of being his spouse.
Good for her.
Without the initial investment there’d be no franchise.
They both took the same chance, it’s business, they both reap the benefits.
When a business arrangement dissolves people get their fair share.
I think we need to stop thinking that when women demand their just due, they are somehow greedy or ungrateful or undeserving.
Bingo. Until we know all of the facts and what she contributed, I’m not going to call her greedy. Way too often we’ve seen men cleverly brief against their partners so I’m slowing the roll on a rush to judgment. And even if she’s not entitled to half, we don’t know what he’s offering so it may be entirely reasonable for her not to move off of her initial position if he’s not budging either.
Yup, exactly.
Research shows that it’s women who take the financial hit after a divorce – not men. Men tend to do better after divorce, despite the bitching and moaning we hear about men getting taken to the cleaners.
Good for her for insisting on her due. She was with him for a long time, I believe, before his career really took off.
I guess same way he could claim half of what she’s done post separation? I guess it’s nothing compared with MM money, but I vaguely recall she’s bought a couple of houses in the last few yrs.
Imo she must get half of what MM did while they were married. Then again, when there was no more support from her or community money; she could get a smaller percentage of the subsequent products since they’re an extension of the original project.
It’s just too bad she didn’t approach them when the IP was developed in order to outline her rights and ensure her cut. Channing Tatum’s lawyer also did him dirty on this regard.
I agree. She is asking the court to determine what she is entitled to under the law. We don’t know all the facts, nor do most of us know California family law so anyone saying she is being greedy for asking for what she deserves under the law might want to ask themselves why that’s the hot take. It might suck for him, but that’s how it is in CA and other community property states so they probably should have had a prenup.
Completely. She’s certainly within her rights asking for it, and the courts will determine to what extent she contributed, both financially and intellectually. Maybe they’ll land somewhere in the middle, maybe she’ll get the 50% she’s asking for, but I doubt she’ll get nothing.
I don’t think she should get half of Magic Mike, but she definitely deserves much more than nothing. This is from People, Channing is a bigger celeb, so this is probably from his perspective, which might be warped. I don’t know what’s fair.
They were married young. So it doesn’t look like they had a pre-nup. And California is a 50/50 state.
It’s not ‘greed’ it’s a fair equitable distribution of assets during their marital years. Magic Mike was part of the time they were married and her and his funds helped create it.
It’s an IP that keeps generating revenue. A revenue that was formed with marital funds. So yes, she has a right to it. And I am sure a good forensic accountant can sus out if the money is being hidden behind shelters.
This exactly! Thank you for stating it so well.
Feel the same as I did when they announced this. MM was born from *his* personal experience, and he continued the work after. Revenue from during the marriage, absolutely 50/50 – but she’s being greedy looking for it all. She’s hardly been left destitute; she has a successful career. And again – if these roles – genders – were reversed, and *he* was going after *her* income, I don’t believe the chorus would be the same on this page.
But to me, it doesn’t matter if she’s left destitute or wealthy. This is irrelevant to the point.
There’s no question that she took financial hits he didn’t simply by virtue of birthing and caring for his child while he went off and made those movies (I say “his child” to make the point that these children belong to men who then go off to work and don’t need to worry about caring for the children they birthed precisely because of the women in their lives).
There’s a context for everything here. Gabriel Aubry went after Halle Berry for money, for instance, and no one called him greedy but I really don’t think you can make a facile role reversal between men and women when it comes to parenthood and earnings. Research shows again and again that women pay a motherhood tax while men simply do not. In fact, there are financial, physical, and emotional costs of reproduction borne disproportionately by women well before before conception. Any effort to address those costs has to acknowledge that women simply pay more than men do for becoming parents in the first place.
Aubry sued Berry for child support as they shared 50/50 custody and her lifestyle far outstripped his, the whole kid is entitled to the same lifestyle no matter which parent they’re with. Dewan isn’t suing Tatum for Magic Mike money to pay child support. There may be a separate child support issue/suit but it’s not related to Magic Mike IP.
@HeatherC he went after her income nonetheless and tbh, I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think a woman should be the one who births the child and then…has to work to maintain the lifestyle she developed during her pre-child career. Especially when research shows that women are penalized for becoming parents in ways men are not, that their earnings diminish after children, that their careers peak earlier/later, etc. The point is less about the relative disparity in their socioeconomic status and more about how you can’t just reverse male and female roles as though they’re interchangeable when it comes to reproduction. Women pay far more costs than men by default, on many levels.
I don’t think she deserves half of anything made after they separated and I’d feel the same way about him if the roles were reversed. She sounds greedy like Kevin Costner’s ex imo
This is an interesting case. If they weren’t officially divorced but separated, she might be eligible for half of what he earned.
She works on “The Rookie” , so she has income.
I’m not sure if she’s truly entitled to half if some of it was done after the split, but if her income and domestic labor was supporting them during the initial development of the IP, then I do think she’s legally entitled to a decent chunk of the revenue. I wonder if her lawyer is insisting she shoot for half knowing they’ll be argued down to a settlement.
I would have a bit more of integrity even if my husband and I separated annd moved on, and he made good money After we separated(on his own resources), I wouldn’t go after his earnings . Esp if I was able to support and make money also on my own. (Not that my husband and I are going to separate 🙂).
There’s a difference between asking for half of everything he’s done since their split and asking for half of the profits from the expansion of a the franchise that she had a hand in building with him.
exactly
People sometimes forget that marriage is a contract and carries with it significant financial risks. She absolutely should get to benefit from the subsequent developments that are based on the initial project.
Professor Google told me that once the parties enter a legal separation, any assets or income aquired by either party is considered separate property.