'Richest Man in Hollywood' Accused of Grooming, Abusing Estranged Ex

He's one of the wealthiest people in the. entertainment industry today. And right. now, he's facing down a bombshell. lawsuit from his aranged husband, who's. accusing him of trapping him in an. abusive relationship, then refusing to. honor the promises he's made. The. splashy suit is a hot topic right now, so we're digging into all the details. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Elizabeth Milner in for Jesse. Weber. He may not be someone you immediately. recognize as Hollywood royalty, but. David Geffen has more than likely had a.

hand in some of your favorite music and. movies. The now 82-year-old has been an. executive for multiple music labels, helping advance the careers from. everyone from the Eagles and Bob Dylan. to Share and Blink 182. His Geffen film. company produced classics like. Beetlejuice and Risky Business. He was a. Broadway backer for the musicals Dream. Girls and Cats. And in 1994, he founded. DreamWorks SKG Studio. According to. Forbes, as of 2024, Geffen is believed. to be the richest person in the. entertainment industry worldwide. He has.

an estimated net worth of 9 billion with. a B dollars. Known for his philanthropy, Geffen has donated huge sums of monies. to universities and art programs. UCLA. School of Medicine is named after him, and so is Yale School of Drama. Lincoln. Center for the Performing Arts in New. York has a David Geffen Hall. And. there's a David Geffin Theater at the. Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los. Angeles. But David Geffin's estrange. husband says that behind the scenes, Geffen used his money, power, and. influence to satisfy his sexual desires.

to the detriment of those around him. In. a 33-page lawsuit filed, by the way, by. Brian J. Freriedman, the same attorney. who's representing Justin Baldoni in his. legal fight with former It Ends with Us. co-star Blake Lively. David Armstrong, also known as Donovan Michaels in the. complaint, says that Geffen used and. abused him. Now, this is what the. complaint says. Michaels is a. 32-year-old survivor of the foster care. system who was pulled into the orbit of. an exploer, masquerading as a white. knight while hiding behind wealth, philanthropy, and fame. Michaels did not.

meet Geffin in a boardroom, at a gala, or through mutual friends. He met him on. seeking arrangements.com, a website. where men like Geffen shop for the. vulnerable. The site, which now goes. simply by seeking.com, is a dating. platform for the rich and famous. On its. homepage, it states, quote, "Seeking is. the premier dating site for. successminded singles. Those who possess. the mindset tailored for success in life. also possess the same mindset necessary. for success in love. Our platform is. designed to foster genuine and authentic.

connections between our members leading. to the good life, lasting partnerships. and love. Sounds super sweet, right? Well, the site also expressly states. that sugar daddy situations and paying. for sex are forbidden. But Michael says. that didn't stop Geffen from finding him. on the site and offering him $10,000 for. one night, which eventually turned into. monthly payments for sex work. According. to Michaels' complaints, Geffen used a. toxic mix of seduction, control, promises of love, and lavish displays of. wealth to ent trap Michaels in a cycle.

of dependency, submission, and. humiliation. Behind the glittering. facade of their relationship was a. calculated pattern of abuse and. commodification. Michaels claims he. acted as a sex worker who was at. Geffin's beck and call. He traveled with. Geffen around the world on Geffin's. super yacht, his constant companion for. years. Eventually, Geffin reportedly. told Michaels that he had fallen in love. with him and he wanted to be an equal. partner in the relationship. The two got. married in March of 2023, and. critically, Michael says the two did not.

have a prenuptual agreement, so no. prenup was signed. Michael said that the. two entered an oral agreement that laid. out Geffin's expectations of Michaels. and what Michaelels would get in return. The lawsuit reads, "In the early months. of the CO 19 pandemic in Los Angeles. County, Geffin sat Michaels down to. discuss with Michaelels a serious. matter. Geffin told Michaels that he had. fallen in love with him, respected him, and wanted to share his life with him as. a life partner, not as a sex worker. Geffen also told Michaels that he would. no longer pay him for sex, and the. monthly payments to his check account.

would stop. Instead, he would take care. of Michaels as if he was his life. partner. Geffin was clear that this was. an entirely different relationship and. that he wanted Michael to take on more. roles as any spouse would do for their. partner. Geffin explained that in. exchange, Michaels would share equally. with him the fruits of his financial. success and take care of him for the. rest of his life. According to Michaels, he had hoped to pursue a modeling. career, but Geffen allegedly told him he. didn't need to quote waste his time. doing that and didn't need to make his. own money. The lawsuit states Michaels.

would forgo his modeling career and. render certain social, emotional, and. domestic services to Geffin. And the. couple, which included, but was not. limited to, being Geffin's confidant, rendering emotional support and. companionship to Geffin, being a travel. companion to Geffin as his partner, not. sex worker, offering Geffin constant. advice on health and wellness, supporting Geffin's social, charitable, and political aspirations, performing. services as a house manager by helping. to coordinate with Geffin staff. helped.

to coordinate and throw parties and. events providing various home remodeling. and maintenance services and caretaking. for Geffen. And according to Michaels, on numerous occasions throughout the. couple's relationship, the oral. agreements were ratified and reaffirmed. by the couple. I want to thank ODU for. sponsoring this episode of Sidebar. ODU. is a powerful all-in-one business. software that helps you manage. everything from sales to accounting and. yes, even manufacturing. Schedule your. production, manage your assembly line, and fine-tune your work orders with. ODU's all-in-one easytouse platform.

Need fully assembled manufacturing. software that puts your business ahead. of schedule? Well, ODO has you covered. Plus, ODO's manufacturing app syncs. seamlessly with your sales, inventory, and purchasing modules, so everything. stays connected and running smoothly. Check out ODO to take your manufacturing. process to the next level. And get a. free 15-day trial today at. odo.com/sidebar. manufacturing. Michaels claimed his. husband often showed him off to his rich. friends, bragging that he had saved. Michaels from what was sure to be a life. of poverty and sex work. Quote, "During.

social visits, Geffin regularly bragged. to his rich and successful friends, often while Michaels was present, that. Michaels had a very difficult childhood, and that Geffen was rescuing him and. saving his life." Invariably, Geffen. would brag to his friends, including. celebrities and media moguls, that. because of him and his willingness to. take care of Michaels, for the rest of. his life, the bad part of Michael's life. was over. Michaels found Geffin's public. braggadocio for social virtue points. demeaning and humiliating, and for that. reason, he came to dread the social.

gatherings Geffen arranged with his. A-list friends. In the lawsuit, Michaels. admitted to frequently using drugs and. alcohol and saying that Geffen offered. him cocaine on their first night that. they were together. He claimed Geffen. and Geffen's rich friends often did. drugs like cocaine and Molly on the. super yacht. Michaels also claimed that. Geffen enjoyed being dominant in the. bedroom, something that Michael says. ended up causing him injury. When. Michaels entered a 12step program to try. to get sober, he says he realized he. needed to be more independent and grow. as his own person. He claims Geffen.

didn't like that at all and demanded a. divorce. According to Michaels, when. Geffin was parting it up in Venice, Italy for Jeff Bezos's wedding to Lauren. Sanchez, he demanded Michaels vacate. their luxury New York City apartment. He. also cut off any and all financial. assistance with Michael, saying that he. had no money of his own and was. essentially left homeless. So, what. causes of action is Michael's claiming. in his lawsuit? Well, he's suing for. breach of oral contract as it pertains. to equal ownership in all property and. assets. Breach of implied contract and.

assets acquired, breach of express oral. contract for lifetime support, breach of. implied contract for support, quantum. meroot, which is a Latin phrase meaning. as much as he has earned, and is a way. of quantifying worth of services or. benefits provided without a formal. contract. And declaratory relief, meaning Michaels is looking for a judge. to help straighten out this contentious. situation. Michaels doesn't put down a. dollar amount on the compensation he's. seeking, saying that he needs to. determine all the assets Geffen has that. he might be entitled to. People magazine. reports that a court order was issued in.

May as a part of their divorce, requiring both Geffin and Michaels to. share their financial information, including things like bank statements. and valuations, as well as property. assets and debts. And they have 60 days. to do just that. GPA's attorney Patty. Glazier said in a statement to the LA. Times there was no contract express, written, oral, or implied that has ever. existed. We'll be vigorously and. righteously defending against this. false, pathetic lawsuit. Well, to help. me get into some of the legal ease of. all of this, I want to welcome back.

Mauricio Padilla, who practices both. criminal and civil law. So, Mauricio, I. got to ask, what's your reaction to this. lawsuit? >> Well, first of all, it reads a little. bit like a novel. Um, you know, I'm not. I'm not used to um complaints in civil. court reading like the way that this one. read. Um, it's it kind of he kind of. paints his client out to be, you know, I. think he uses the word vulnerable that. um the website seeking arrangements is.

where, you know, I guess rich men or. rich people go to seek out the. vulnerable. Um, I would dispute that. I. don't think uh I would describe people. that that have opened up an ad on. seeking arrangements as vulnerable. And. and I think a lot of the facts in the. complaint really don't go handinhand. with what he's trying to to get the. court or or the reader to to think in. including that his client number one is. vulnerable and number one that someone. should feel sorry for his client. This. is someone that was accepting $10,000,

you know, to have sex with the guy and. he basically got to live like, you know, with a billionaire for all these years. So, I don't know. I I I read it. I also. feel that I was kind of anticipating. that a lot of these arguments would have. been made in in the divorce case. I. understand that Geffen did file for. divorce in May. And at least in Florida, some of these counts may have been. decided, which is where I practice civil. court is in Florida. Some of these. counts may have been addressed by by the. divorce court. So maybe there'll. there'll be some type of pleadings in.

California regarding, hey, listen, we're. already in court on the divorce matter. We have a judge and some of these counts. could be, you know, inextricably. intertwined with the divorce and the the. divorce judge would be the person best. to make make that decision. >> And are you surprised by some of the. allegations in it in terms of just these. oral um agreements in in terms of the. oral agreements? How binding are they? if there if there's nothing formally. written down and perhaps no witnesses to. these statements, does it just become. like a he said, he said type of thing?

Um, or do you think that Michael's. attorneys, they reference both the. implied contract and express contract. kind of? What's the difference between. all these legal ease in terms of this. written and oral contract, the versus, >> right? Well, well, listen. I mean, there's some situations where an oral. contract could be binding on on on on. people, but there's so many restrictions. on when an oral contract would not be. binding that in my experience, um, you.

know, it's it's rare to succeed because. there's so many restrictions on when you. really should put something in writing. Um, and then there's something called. the the statute of frauds that, you. know, applies to Florida, California, and all states in the United States. where it it it gives an outline of when. an oral contract is not appropriate. Like for instance, you cannot do an oral. contract when it comes to anything. regarding real property. Land, a house. has to be in writing. You know, it. there's certain uh there's certain. limits like if if it's more than a. certain amount of money, it has to be in.

writing. If it's something that has that. that that cannot be performed within a. sixmonth uh period of time, usually it. has to be in writing. That's and that's. the way that the courts limit the. ability to for someone to say, "Hey, you. know what? Four years ago, you orally. told me blah blah blah and now I'm going. to sue you for it." Because then that. would open up the floodgates and people, you know, would be suing for all types. of oral promises. And and I think the. courts in all states, California, Florida, and all the states in the. United States, they want to promote. putting things in writing. That's that's.

going to be an issue one one way or the. other. I'm anticipating, you know, there. you're you're going to see motions to. dismiss and things of that nature. regarding that the fact that none of. this was in writing. >> And do you think that any part of you. thinks that this complain or this. lawsuit was filed in order to possibly. just embarrass David Geffin? I mean, he's a huge name. He has a lot of money. In terms of just the allegations. overall, it just seems like kind of the. the gist of it is just that um Michaels. was kicked out of the home and then.

Geffin had filed for divorce too. And it. seems like maybe this is just kind of a. counter for um what had happened in him. filing for divorce. Like maybe if you. know a blank check was written that. maybe this complaint would have never. been filed. But what do you think? Or am. I just kind of throwing it out there? >> I mean possibly. I mean, I I don't I I I. would not if I was, you know, representing this gentleman in the. divorce, I would not promote filing this. type of thing because at the end of the. day, okay, you guys broke up, you're.

married, and all these disputes could be. handled one way or the other in the. divorce. Even if some of these counts. are counts that cannot be heard by the. divorce court, at the end of the day, in. a universal sense, it's a dispute. between two people that were married. So. you could have let that play out instead. of taking the opportunity to file this. lawsuit. So yeah, I think it could be a. grab for attention and it could be an. opportunity for them to include things. that maybe in the divorce would have. been irrelevant, would have been uh a. subject to a motion to strike and and.

honestly like when I read it, which I'm. thinking maybe a judge is going to feel. the same way, there's a lot in there. that really goes beyond what you would. expect in a legal pleading about feeling. bad for him and, you know, all the bad, you know, all the all all the things. that he suffered. And it it really goes. into a a narrative that goes beyond in. detail and in trying to garner sympathy. for his client that you usually don't. see. And at the end of the day, I don't. know how many people are going to be. feeling sorry for this guy. It is what. it is. And I read on there that they got.

married without a prenup. >> Right. >> So, you know, I practice family law and. I'm going to tell you that if you if. you're a billionaire, you marry somebody. without a prenup, he has he has a payday. coming. >> Yeah. >> You know what I mean? Like he he's not. going to walk with nothing. I believe. that this could have been premature. Like, and then you're forcing him to. lawyer up and really defend this. And. his position, Geffin's position is going. to be like, now you came from my throat. You've made all these allegations. You. filed a separate. So, now I'm going to. fight you on the on the divorce case. And imagine, and anytime that you are. litigating against a billionaire, that's.

an issue, too, because you're talking. about unlimited resources. They're going. to come at you hard. So, yeah. I don't. know. I I don't know what what his game. plan was. >> Yeah. And I was surprised by this. complainer of this lawsuit too for that. exact reason, that being that there was. no prenup signed. And in terms of if. there was a prenup that would have been. signed, what kind of difference do you. think this would have made? I I would. expect an automatic kind of payout if. they were together for so many years, that type of thing. But maybe I think. under what, two years, I wouldn't expect.

such a big amount of his wealth because. David Geffin's worth a lot of money, billions and billions of dollars. And so. why do you think that there was no. prenup that was signed? Obviously, he, you know, Mr. Geffin thought that he was. in love and this was going to be for the. rest of his life. I mean, anybody that. gets married without a prenup is putting. themselves out there. The reason that I. say that I think he has a payday coming. is no matter how long the length of. marriage, when you're dealing with. somebody that's a billionaire, from the. moment that he got married to him to the. moment that they separated, everything. is is marital. So, yeah, you're a. billionaire. How much did you how much.

is you did you generate in 2024? 100. million. That's marital. How much did. you generate in 2023? 100 million. That's marital. That's that's the issue. when you make that type of money that if. you don't have a prenup, everything. every property that you bought, every. every dollar that you made for yourself, not for his businesses, but that that. that you know is factored into his his. own wealth. So yeah, I mean there's. money there one way or the other. >> And what kind of response do you expect. from David Geffin's legal team in terms. of you know their response filing or.

something um to that nature? a scorching. a scorching motion to dismiss, motion to. strike, motion for sanctions. They're. going to go after the actual attorney, I'm pretty sure, and say that, you know, as an attorney, you should never follow. this for multiple reasons. There's. different rules in different states. where there's a mechanisms that could. switch the attorney's fees. So there's. like in in Florida there's a there's one. called 57105 that you pretty much put. the person on notice and let them know. what you filed your client and yourself.

as an attorney should have known that. there was not based in fact or law and. that you should have never filed it. So. I would anticipate a motion to dismiss. and some type of attack where they're. telling them we're coming after. attorney's fees from you and your lawyer. for even filing this. >> And what's it like when you're. representing a client where maybe it did. start off as love and maybe it did start. off as a loving relationship. It's kind. of hard with this case specifically. because they met through um seeking. arrangements or seeking as it's called. now and you know maybe it started off as. transactional relationship then from.

David Geffin's point of view maybe it. was actual love they got married they. did so even without a prenup and then it. turns into this. So, what is it kind of. like I think on both ends for David. Geffin's perspective and even Michael's. perspective in terms of just how it. started off maybe good, maybe great, and. then it just is going to sour and I can. see this playing out very publicly for a. while. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, listen, I you know, there's something to be said about when. when a relationship starts as. transactional, it's going to be.

transactional forever. So the problem is. is now now no matter what now that he. broke up with him now the guy's coming. after him. People could say listen you. know you should have been able to to. read the tea leaves early on if that's. what he was interested in in the. beginning. I mean once you're paying. somebody for sex I don't know if you. could ever get over that and now you're. we don't no longer have a transactional. relationship but we love each other. That's something that I guess Geffin's. going to have to think about next next. go around. As far as, you know, success. on the merits regarding this case, I. don't know. Maybe it was a ploy to try.

to get him come to the table and. negotiate better in the in the divorce. I'm unclear whether he has the same. attorney in the divorce case as he does. in the civil matter. But it also could. have been an opportunity to further. attack his reputation. Even though I. think a lot of people are going to read. this and going to be like, "Okay, so. what's the problem?" Like, if you're a. billionaire and you want to marry some. young hot guy, you know, you could do. it. And that guy, yeah, you're doing it. to your peril. At the end of the day, the moment that he divorces you, you're. back to being who you were. Just because. you married him doesn't mean that now. you may never have to work again, which.

is something that I deal with all the. time where, you know, people marry. people that are extremely wealthy and. they think that because I was married to. you for 2, three, four years, I never. have to work again. There's no law that. says that. And, you know, Florida, where. I'm from, has restricted alimony over. and over again. And they've they've made. it more difficult for one spouse to make. another spouse pay alimony. I'm unclear. regarding the California law. I think. it's a little bit better for spouses. that are requesting alimony in. California from my understanding, but. yeah, listen, I I I think it's going to. be interesting what what they're going.

to file in response. Um, but I can. anticipate, you know, some serious. attacks. >> Yeah, I expect a scorching kind of. response just like you were saying. earlier too, Mauricio. And I want to. thank you so much for your time and your. insight into this. Before we sign you. off though, after the fiery um response. that we're possibly expecting from David. Guffett's legal team, what else do you. think is going to be happening next in. this um case? >> Well, well, the I mean the way it works. is they they'll file motions to dismiss. and motions to dismiss are are based on. the four corners of the complaint. So,

you're asking it for it to be dismissed. based on some procedural defect or the. fact that it doesn't satisfy the. elements of the civil counts that are. addressed in the lawsuit. But then. eventually, if they overcome that, then. eventually there's motion for summary. judgement. Motion for summary judgement. is when you're telling a judge we don't. need a trial because based on the law. and based on the facts of the case the. court can make this determination. without us having to spend money on a. trial. There'll be discovery the. discovery phase which someone like is. not looking forward to that because it's. going to be intrusive. It's going to be.

intrusive both personally financially. They can go as far as trying to subpoena. text messages trying to find out who. else he was sleeping with. It's going to. be intrusive and intrusive for anyone. and especially billionaires which all. with all the money they have and all the. connections and all the communications. that they have with other people. There'll be discovery phase and then at. some point I'm I'm anticipating a battle. of motions for summary judgement um to. see whether or not this case is. something that's going to actually go to. trial. >> Yeah, I'd be very surprised if it even. goes that far. But Mauricio Padi, I.

guess we'll see how this all continues. to play out. Thank you again so much for. your time and your insight into this. case. I really appreciate it. Thank you. so much. Nice seeing you. >> Well, that does it for this episode of. Sidebar. If you want to see more. episodes, head over to the Lawn Crab. YouTube page or subscribe to us anywhere. you get your podcast, whether it's Apple. Podcast, Spotify, or YouTube. I'm. Elizabeth Milner in for Jesse Weber and. this has been Sidebar presented by Law. and Crime. [Music].