David Geffen Proposes $50,000 Monthly Spousal Support for Estranged Husband Amid Contentious Divorce

David Geffen, the 82-year-old media mogul and philanthropist, is at the center of a contentious divorce with his estranged husband, Donovan Michaels (also known as David Armstrong), who is fifty years his junior. Their separation has become a focal point in LGBTQ+ and national media, not only for the vast wealth at stake but also for its implications regarding spousal support and relationship dynamics in high-net-worth same-sex marriages .

According to new filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, Geffen has proposed to pay Michaels $50,000 per month for up to twelve months as spousal support, totaling $600,000. However, Geffen’s legal team has stipulated that these payments should be deducted from $200,000 he claims to have already paid to Michaels during the separation period. This approach, if accepted, would effectively reduce the new financial obligation to $400,000 .

The filings further indicate that Geffen is seeking to resolve the divorce swiftly, aiming for a so-called “single-status” divorce that would end their legal marriage before all financial matters are settled. This legal strategy is possible under California law, which allows couples to dissolve their marital status while financial and property disputes continue .

Geffen and Michaels reportedly met in 2016 through a sugar dating website, SeekingArrangements.com, with Michaels (then using the surname Armstrong) allegedly receiving compensation for their early encounters. Their relationship transitioned into cohabitation around 2020 and culminated in marriage in 2023. The couple’s split, after less than two years of marriage, has drawn significant attention due to the absence of a prenuptial agreement and the substantial age and wealth gap between the two .

Michaels has filed claims asserting that Geffen promised to support him for life, referencing verbal assurances and suggesting he was induced to abandon his own career and undergo cosmetic procedures to meet Geffen’s expectations. He also alleges that Geffen made promises regarding inheritance of substantial assets, including Geffen’s $400 million yacht. Geffen’s legal team has strongly denied these claims, labeling them as “ludicrous and contrived” and characterizing Michaels as a reckless spender who benefited lavishly from the relationship .

California law generally limits spousal support in short marriages, especially when there is no prenuptial agreement. The state’s family code presumes that for marriages lasting less than ten years, support should last approximately half the duration of the marriage, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Legal experts note that “extraordinary wealth does not override these rules,” meaning Michaels’ ability to secure long-term or lifetime support is legally restricted .

Michaels has also filed a separate civil action based on *Marvin v. Marvin* precedent, a 1976 California Supreme Court ruling that allows unmarried partners to enforce property or support agreements if not based solely on sexual services. However, such claims are difficult to prove without clear documentation, and courts have historically been reluctant to grant substantial awards in these cases without written evidence of the alleged promises .

Beyond financial disputes, the case has been marked by mutual allegations. Geffen’s filings accuse Michaels of concealing drug use and engaging in extramarital affairs, while continuing to live rent-free in a luxury New York apartment that Geffen owns and receiving monthly support. Geffen’s attorneys argue that these facts undermine claims that Michaels was left “destitute” after the split .

Meanwhile, Michaels has sought to spotlight what he describes as the “power imbalance” inherent in their relationship, raising questions about the nature of consent and support in relationships with significant disparities in age and financial status .

The Geffen-Michaels divorce highlights several issues relevant to LGBTQ+ individuals, especially around marriage equality, financial security, and the visibility of same-sex relationships in litigation. High-profile same-sex divorces remain relatively rare in the public eye, and the case has sparked conversations about prenuptial agreements, the unique legal challenges faced by LGBTQ+ couples, and the evolving social acceptance of diverse relationship structures .

Advocates note that cases like this underscore the importance of legal planning for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, and the need for ongoing legal reforms to ensure fairness and equity. The public interest in the case also reflects broader questions about how LGBTQ+ relationships are portrayed in the media, often focusing on sensational details rather than the substantive legal and emotional issues at stake .

As the legal battle continues, both parties are expected to present further evidence in support of their claims. The court’s decisions in coming months will likely set precedents for how spousal support, asset division, and verbal agreements are treated in high-net-worth, short-duration same-sex marriages. For now, Geffen’s proposal—$50,000 per month for one year, less any amounts already paid—remains on the table as both sides seek a resolution to their widely publicized split .