Getty (2)
Channing Tatum Reveals 6-Figure Sum Spent on Fighting Ex Jenna Dewan as Their Divorce War Turns Ugly
Channing Tatum revealed he has spent “hundreds of thousands” in legal fees fighting his ex-wife, Jenna Dewan, in their never-ending divorce war, In Touch can exclusively reveal.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Channing, 44, dropped the bombshell as he fought Jenna’s effort to disqualify his legal team less than three months before they are set to face off at trial.
Jenna, 43, and Channing have been unable to reach a settlement on the division of their property. The exes split in 2018 and quickly hashed out a custody deal over their daughter Everly.
The biggest issue that remains is how they will split the profits from the Magic Mike empire. Jenna believes she is owed a 50 percent cut of Channing’s interest in the various businesses.
Magic Mike is a 2012 film where Channing starred as a male stripper. The movie was a massive hit. Channing and his business partners had two sequels green lit, launched a live show in Las Vegas under the Magic Mike name, had a reality show on HBO around the live show and have opened a series of other businesses under the name.
Channing agrees that Jenna is owed a cut of the Magic Mike profits but they don’t see eye to eye on the percentage.
Jenna recently accused Channing of bringing on a new law firm to join his longtime law firm to represent him in the divorce. She claims Channing has objected to turning over documents that she requested related to Magic Mike.
Jenna claims Channing cited attorney-client privilege in his refusal to turn over certain documents, since the new law firm he brought on had prepared the documents years ago.
Jenna argued this was nonsense. On top of that, she asked that the new law firm be kicked off the case.
She said it was a conflict since the firm had represented businesses that she believes were community property during the marriage.
In addition, Jenna asked that Channing’s longtime law firm be disqualified too. Channing claims Jenna’s request is an attempt to drag out the case.
“To deprive [Channing] of the counsel of his choice at this late stage in these proceedings, where no unfair disadvantage to [Jenna] can be established, would be devastating to [Channing] and cause him undue hardship without serving the purpose of the disqualification remedy,” his lawyer argued.
Channing said that Jenna was never represented by the firm in question despite her claims.
He said Jenna never hired them, never consulted with them, and the firm never jointly represented them. The actor said that Jenna has “never claimed that she spoke with any attorney” at the firm in question nor disclosed any confidential information to the firm.
He said there is no evidence that the firm provided her with legal advice or that she ever paid any fees to the firm.
Channing said that at her deposition, Jenna testified that she has no recollection of ever speaking to, paying, or receiving legal representation from the firm.
He claimed the firm represented him in a business matter where Jenna was not a member of the entity. The Blink Twice star said that it would be “virtually impossible” for another “first-chair attorney” to sufficiently learn the record in this case and properly represent him in a trial scheduled for December.
He said to disqualify his lawyers would “deprive him” of his counsel of choice and “irreparable prejudice his ability to defend himself at trial.”
Channing’s lawyer added, “To even attempt such a last-minute transition would also mean an enormous financial burden on [Channing]. [Channing] has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees with [the law firm] over the last six years. It would cost at least that much, if not more, to attempt to bring a new law firm in to try this case on [Channing’s] behalf.”
A judge has yet to rule.
As In Touch first reported, Channing recently dragged Jenna’s fiancé, Steve Kazee, into the court battle.
Conversation
All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. In Touch Weekly does not endorse the opinions and views shared by our readers in our comment sections. Our comments section is a place where readers can engage in healthy, productive, lively, and respectful discussions. Offensive language, hate speech, personal attacks, and/or defamatory statements are not permitted. Advertising or spam is also prohibited.
