Linda Evangelista Uses Her Kid to Justify Her Expensive Lifestyle

19

Hey, anyone remember Linda Evangelista? She was a super-famous model in the early '90s, popularized in no small part by her trend-setting hairstyle changes and being featured in George Michael videos. It's been a while since her heyday (she's currently modeling for, ah, Talbots), but apparently she hasn't lost her taste for the finer things in life. Once known for saying "We don't wake up for less than $10,000 a day" in reference to her modeling success, Evangelista is taking her ex to court for child support—and you're not going to believe what she's asking for.

Her ex, by the way, is François-Henri Pinault, a billionaire Frenchman who happens to be Salma Hayek's husband. Apparently Pinault became Evangelista's baby-daddy in early 2006, 11 months before Hayek had her own child with Pinault. Wow, rich French dude gets around.

Okay, so here's how much money Linda Evangelista says she needs every month to take care of her 4-year-old son ... drum roll, please ... $46,000.


FORTY-SIX THOUSAND. DOLLARS. A MONTH. Because she needs an around-the-clock nanny (at $80,000 a year!) and a team of armed chauffeurs, not to mention the ongoing beauty appointments and gym visits, which she claims are necessary for maintaining her career.


Does ... does anyone else kind of want to punch her right in her pretty face? Look, I know violence is never the answer, but it would just feel so good.


I have no doubt that Evangelista has to put in work on her appearance if she wants to maintain her modeling career at 46 years old, but hey, maybe it's time to consider a different line of work? Or RETIRING, considering her highly-in-demand supermodel days are long behind her, and she reportedly has a personal wealth of more than $8 million? I mean, are we really supposed to buy this crap about how she's just a hardworking single mom who needs half a million dollars a year to make ends meet?


Also, armed chauffeurs? What is she, the President of the United Modeling World? Put a ponytail on that lady and I'd bet good money—like $46,000, even!—that no one would recognize her OR her kid.


It seems extra weird that she's taking Pinault to court now, four years after they produced their lovechild. Do you think maybe it has less to do with the welfare of her son, and more to do with the $50,000 a month Pinault is reportedly spending on a trust for his daughter with Hayek? How does that saying go—"hell hath no fury like a washed-up supermodel left in the dust while her rich French lover marries a more famous younger woman," something like that?


What do you think about Linda Evangelista's child support request?



Image via Splash News

celeb babies, celebs

19 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

mustb... mustbeGRACE

She doesn't have to justify ANYTHING to me.




It's none of my business.

Courtney Paige Neale

I think its ridiculous! we are in a RECESSION!!! Freaking uncaring, selfish bitch.

Amy Chester


Her baby Daddy can afford it and he should. It's his wealth that puts his child in danger. Also if he's putting 50k a month down for his daughter he better do the same for his son on top of whatever he ends up paying in support. Also who pays NOTHING for 4 years?!? Seriously. Dude is a billionare with a capital B. He needs to do right by his kids, no matter who their Mommy is.

Courtney Paige Neale

Amy - where does it say hes been paying nothing? I HIGHLY doubt that.

DiANA... DiANAiVELiSSE

Amy I agree " do right by your kids" but 46k a mth REALLY!! they are not the one's that need the spa-they hair done-pedi-mani, etc..

nonmember avatar Kristi

Okay, first of all Linda was born in 65, Salma in 66, that's hardly what I would call being left for a younger woman. Second, if you want to compare net worths and say who's less deserving Linda has a net worth of 8 million according to you, I just looked it up and found out Salma has a net worth of 85 million. So how exactly is it fair to the kids (and that's what this is about after all, not the current state of the economy or how much your mom raised you on) that he's putting aside 50k a month into a trust fund for his daughter with Salma and wants to give less than that a month to his son? They're pretty much the same age, they should be treated equally. So I say he needs to contribute an equal amount of money to a trust fund for his son and on top of that pay support.

nonmember avatar vincent bobo

I think it's highway robbery... I don't think NO WOMAN should recieve over $15,000 a month for a CHILD. It is called child support for a reason...It isn't called Family, Friends, Lifestyle Support. There are plenty of women supporting a WHOLE FAMILY on $15000 a year and plenty of women that give their right arm to make $46,000 a year. Any woman that agrees that she should recieve that type of money is just plain greedy and deserve to live the rest of their life alone. It doesn't matter what he is doing with his new wife and child. He has moved on so should she. If she wanted to keep living the lifestyle, then she shouldn't have gotten a divorce.

nonmember avatar Kristi

@Vincent, apparently you don't know but you don't "move on" from having a child. Even if you're not married to the child's mother that child still deserves to be treated the way that your other children are. No where in my post did I say 46k a month was reasonable, but I did say that if he's creating a trust fund for one child he should create an equal one for his other children. He should also pay support on top of that. No, he should not have to pay for her to go to the gym and keep up with her beauty stuff so she can maintain a career, that's on her head. But a nanny and guards (if they're needed, lets face it, the children of wealthy people are at risk) aren't unreasonable. Oh and btw the personal attack and saying I deserve to be alone? Very classy and gives you some very real credibility. Karma is real, enjoy it when the hatred you put out there comes back to you!!

Amanda McCallum

Every non-custodial parent should have to pay child support based on their income.  The guy is a billionaire damn right he should pay!  This has nothing to do with greed this is having your child live at the same standard as you live.  If he is putting away 50 grand a month for a trust for one child but not his other child that is beyond wrong!  Just because you are no longer with the mother of that child doesn't give you the right to treat that child any differently.  Get over the amount of money and look at the big picture how would you feel if your father left, had another child, and gave that child a huge trust fund and no trust fund for you??? It's not the kids fault daddy left!  I won't take both my kids to the toy store and only buy a toy for one child and not the other how is this different?

ohiom... ohiomommyof2

I agree he needs to support both children equally, but there is NO WAY that child needs $46,000 a month to survive, even in a lavish lifestyle. That's just plain ridiculous, no matter how you look at it. It's a woman scorned who wants to take what she can get from a man who's worth more than half the world combined. If she's worth $8 million herself, she isn't hurting for money. To demand that kind of money based soley on hard feelings is stupid, greedy and just plain wrong.

1-10 of 19 comments 12 Last