Kelly Clarkson Was Ordered to Pay Her Ex $200K a Month and People Cannot Get Over It

Share
LinkedInPin
Brandon Blackstock
Getty Images

News that Kelly Clarkson was suddenly divorcing her husband, Brandon Blackstock, last summer came as a shock to most fans who thought the pair was happily married. But that paled in comparison to the latest update on their split, which was leaked earlier this week. According to multiple reports, a judge has ordered Clarkson to fork over $200K a month to her ex in both spousal and child support payments. (That's right — a MONTH!) The news has been sweeping social media for days, where people have not exactly been quiet about dropping their opinions on the matter.

To be fair, the monthly payments work out to just *under* $200K

According to PEOPLE, Clarkson is now required to shell out $150,000 a month in spousal support to Blackstock, plus $45,601 a month in child support. All together, that adds up to a grand total of $195,601 — or roughly $2.4 million a year.

via GIPHY

And that's not all

The agreement also requires the singer to pay $1.25 million in legal fees to Blackstock's attorney, as well as other fees and costs associated with their ongoing divorce.

via GIPHY

To say this has been an expensive divorce might be the understatement of the year. But it's also been a pretty surprising one, if you ask most people.

Not too long ago, they were something of a golden couple

Clarkson, 39, and Blackstock, 44, originally met back in 2006, through his father and her former manager, Narvel Blackstock. However, they didn't actually begin dating until late 2011 — when they both hit it off and never looked back.

“I’m too happy," Clarkson reportedly told Us Weekly magazine in May 2012. He’s ruining my creativity. I’m writing all this happy s–t. It’s killing me."

Then, in the fall of 2013, the pair quietly wed in a small and intimate ceremony at a Tennessee ranch.

"I'm officially Mrs. Blackstock," tweeted the then-31-year-old bride. "We got married yesterday at Blackberry Farms in TN, the most beautiful place ever!"

Over the years, Clarkson spoke glowingly about her husband. She even admitted that Brandon was the first guy she ever wanted to say "I love you" to — and actually meant it.

"I never thought honestly I would get married or fall in ‘love,’ like they say in the movies … I just didn’t know if it was possible,” Clarkson shared in a 2015 interview.

Clarkson also fell in love with motherhood

The couple went on to welcome two children together — River Rose, 7, and Remington Alexander, 5 — while Clarkson also became a proud stepmom to Blackstock's two kids from a previous marriage.

In 2016, she told Entertainment Tonight that becoming a mother actually made her feel "more confident" and "empowered."

And, knowing that her daughter is watching her closely, she's been proud of the example she's set for her.

“I try to just be a confident female for her ― and I believe actions obviously speak louder than words. It’s an old saying but it’s very true,” Clarkson also told Us.

That confidence and work ethic has certainly paid off. To date, Clarkson has written successful children's books, launched a home decor collection with Wayfair, become a popular judge on NBC's The Voice, and even has begun her own talk show.

But behind the scenes, her marriage was secretly unraveling

In June 2020, Clarkson filed for divorce, citing "irreconcilable differences." She also later accused Brandon and his father of "fraudulent and subterfuge device," after discovering they'd been operating as unlicensed California talent agents for years.

According to Vanity Fair, Clarkson has even filed a legal claim seeking to void an oral agreement she made with the Blackstocks' management firm back in 2007. She is also seeking compensation for the “unconscionable fees” she ultimately paid for “illegal services” rendered by both Brandon and Narvel during the years they represented her, from 2007 to 2020.

But this week, the latest legal ruling caused *quite* a stir

For starters, people openly wondered what in the WORLD someone would need $200K a month for.

"How much is she worth cuz damn 200k a month that's crazy …," tweeted one person.

To be fair, Clarkson is worth a lot of money — not just from her music career, but also from multiple other business ventures. (According to Parade, she has a net worth somewhere in the $45 million range, and takes in about $1.5 million per month.) But compared to the average American, who makes just under $52,000 a year, the concept of getting $200K a month from your ex — when you already have income streams of your own — is pretty mind-boggling.

"One monthly payment of spousal support from Kelly clarkson would pay my entire student loan, buy me a much needed reliable vehicle, and leave me enough to put a deposit down on a mortgage," tweeted one woman. "ONE MONTH."

Others were more confused about the logistics of it all

After all, Clarkson has had primary custody of their kids since November 2020 — so why would she have to pay her ex anything, they wondered.

"Why the hell does Kelly Clarkson have to pay her ex anything if she’s got the kids?" tweeted one person. "He should be paying her."

"Can Kelly Clarkson appeal that decision?" tweeted someone else. "Ain’t no way she should be paying that much money to her ex and for child support too … he doesn’t even have custody of those kids."

"Once again a system taking advantage of successful women and the leeches taking what they 'can,'" added someone else.

A Twitter poll by Dish Nation even found that 83% of respondents thought the ruling was "ridiculous," considering the custody arrangement.

But plenty of others actually found it pretty fair

Some people argued that if the shoe was on the other foot — as in, if Blackstock was a woman and Clarkson was a man — we might not bat an eye over this ruling. (According to MarketWatch, more women are starting to pay spousal support in their divorces, but this has only started to change in the past few years.)

"When a female gets alimony it's cool," one person pointed out. "When it's the other way around … "

Even so, for every tweet that seemed to imply Blackstock was a gold-digger and Clarkson had been "wronged," there were plenty of others that cheered the decision.

"Know your worth, King," tweeted one man after reading the news.

"The man sacrificed so much staying at home with the kids and being a homemaker he's entitled to that money," added someone else. "Clarkson wouldn't have advanced so far in her career without Brandon's support. Slay King Prince get that money."

Ahem, just to clarify, there is no reported evidence to suggest that Blackstock was a full-time SAHD, and both parties did have flourishing careers of their own before, during, and after the marriage. In fact, Kelly has spoken a lot about their shared tendencies to be workaholics, and shortly after their divorce last year, a source told People that their nonstop work ethic, plus the stress of quarantine, had placed a lot of stress on the marriage.

"They both work so hard," the source shared. "It's nearly impossible to enjoy each other, especially with the children needing constant attention."

Believe it or not, though, Blackstock originally asked for more

… And we do mean MUCH more.

According to reports, he originally asked for a total of $436,000 per month — breaking down to $301,000 in spousal support and $135,000 in child support.

via GIPHY

This part of the story actually got a lot of people fired up.

"I feel so irrationally defensive of Kelly Clarkson RN," tweeted one woman. "Like, she's paying her ex 200k/month even when she has primary custody of the kids? Make it make sense … what does he need 200 THOUSAND A MONTH FOR? And he had the audacity to ask for 400k a month originally? I'm gonna pass out."

In fact, a lot of social media users have accused Blackstock of being nothing short of greedy and money-grubbing.

But others (mostly men) wondered if that perspective was actually kind of sexist.

"Don't you love all the women that are pissed that a woman has to pay a guy spousal and child support," tweeted one man. "But if it was the other way around, they be going slay Queen and let's go congratulations for her."

To that, though, plenty of others shot back that the real point here shouldn't be about gender roles at all, but rather whether the legal system was appropriately applied.

And, according to many, in this case it wasn't.

"People saying this is a win for men really are missing the big picture," tweeted one woman. "Our family law system is completely f'd if you have to pay an able bodied individual capable of making his own living 200 thousand a month whether it be male or female."

Kaitlin Stanford