Christie Brinkley & Peter Cook: What's At Stake?

By Access HollywoodJuly 7, 2008, 5:53 pm PDT

NEW YORK, New York -- After Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook duke it out over custody, the next phase of their divorce proceedings will be over assets.

According to a source in the Brinkley camp, at issue is $3 million worth of property and boats, one of which the supermodel gave Cook for his 40th birthday. But Cook's lawyer, Norman Sheresky, said that the dollar figure at stake is somewhere around two to three times that.

[ Christie Brinkley's Divorce Battle (July 7, 2008) - Play it Now ]

Sheresky told Access Hollywood that there are 18 properties in dispute, which Cook should get anywhere between $5-10 million from, including their $30 million home, which Brinkley owns under the prenuptial agreement, but which Cook developed as an architect.

Cook's side is set to argue that during their marriage, Cook worked in real estate and architecture and was responsible for finding a number of the properties that they bought, including one on the exclusive island of Parrot Cay in the Turks and Caicos.

[ Christie Brinkley - Check Out the Photos ]

Sheresky said that the properties are owned by operating companies or trusts in which Cook owns a minority stake or no stake at all, but which he was active in developing.

However, the problem is that at the time, Cook didn't have a lawyer representing him, and instead used Brinkley's lawyers.

[ All Access: Christie Brinkley - Couples - Celebrity Scandals - Divorces ]

They also agreed that if they sold the properties, Cook would pay her the money back plus interest, Sheresky added.

As for the birthday boat, Sheresky said it's unarguably his client's.

[ Christie Brinkley & Peter Cook's Court Showdown - Play it Now ]

During the course of their marriage, Brinkley's wealth went from $13 million to $67 million, according to Sheresky.

But as to what they're really fighting for in court?

[ Week's Best Star Sightings: May 10 - 16, 200 - Check Out the Photos ]

"They're battling for the kids," Sheresky concluded.

back to top

comments

comments 1-10 of 15  | newest | < newer | older > | oldest
  • Timothy W
    why should the women always get the children, is that how the law reads, if the guy is a good father let him have his kids. any twat that says different is letting the mouth between her legs speak. Joint custody should be given unless it is a dangerous environment for the children, examples are drugs, alcohol, violence, but cetainly not internet porn no matter how much you spend on it.
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 6:02 pm PDT
  • J
    Is why you dont hire a nanny ...... men are men .......
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 1:20 pm PDT
  • pandora
    The kids should go with the mother, period. Dad should have an ordinary amount of visitation, and pay child support. The rest of it is silly-they both have plenty, but the children's stability is paramount.
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 12:10 pm PDT
  • jazzy g
    stick to the prenup ! he gets the boat and if he didn't use his own lawyers for doing workwhile doing his job oh well and would he work for someone else without a lawyer looking at the paper work ..no! joint stuff sell it!! he gets to see the kids every other weekend and during summer breaks! because chasing young girls he won't have that much time for his own kids anyway!! enough
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 9:06 am PDT
  • Kristoffer P
    It's tragic really and no body wins especially the kids! If they could just put aside there MASSIVE egos for one milla-second they would have taken or she rather would have taken a diffrent path! Now they are going to fighting about THINGS! If she really wanted to get rid of him she would have just said take you things and go! They have a pre-nupt! The whole public airing make come back a
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 7:30 am PDT
  • scorned100
    This woman is a complete NUTJOB. Married 4 times. Her four children have 4 different fathers. She must have ever STD known to man. What a dirty whore. Note to Christine....when it comes to your relationship failures , it truly is you and not them.
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 6:50 am PDT
  • cherryblossom
    I guess beauty and money can't buy happiness.
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 3:13 am PDT
  • Just us and our kids
    She wasnt their nanny. She worked at his office.
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 2:48 am PDT
  • You Da Man
    Just another bunch of rich losers fighting over the last peanut. How many divorces has she had ? LOL
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 2:37 am PDT
  • kissjonez
    That's both their fault!! They should've hired an old fat nanny from the get go!! I mean its simple mathematics,common sense!!!!
    report abuseposted July 8, 2008, 12:14 am PDT
comments 1-10 of 15  | newest | < newer | older > | oldest

post your comment

hi there!

Want to post a comment? Just sign in and you'll be good to go.

sign in

Help us continue to improve omg! - Send Your Suggestions