« BACK TO TMZ TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Dwayne's Ex Doesn't Want a Piece of the Rock

5/29/2008 5:54 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's divorce proceedings are officially done, according to court docs filed last week.
Read the docs
Johnson and his now-ex-wife, Dany Garcia, have a 7-year-old daughter, Simone. According to their divorce agreement, both sides will pay $5,000 a month into a trust fund to be used towards a private school, college education and other living expenses.

Garcia and Johnson will share custody -- splitting up holidays and whatnot -- and both agreed to waive their right to alimony, though The Rock will fork over $22,454/month in child support. Don't worry about Garcia -- she made $700k last year as a financial adviser.

For more sports stories, check out tmzsports.com!
94 COMMENTS

No Avatar
61.

tonyao2l2    

Commendable. Sounds like a classy lady.

2301 days ago
62.

unreal    

REFRESHING!! To see a couple put their child ahead of themselves! This is how things should be!

2301 days ago
63.

CVS Whore    

When my daughter was in school, she used to tell stories of him hangin' at the local college bar & trying to pick-up the female (college) students.

2301 days ago
64.

OCD    



Sounds like an amicable divorce...so far.

2301 days ago
65.

egriffin    

#61, at least he didn't do an R. Kelly!

2301 days ago
66.

Rosa    

The child support scale is relative to the lifestyle of the family before the divorce/separation. If you read through the itemized expenses, the mortgage for Dany's house alone is $30K a month, which is where the child may be residing full time. Now, can they find something significantly cheaper in Miami? Maybe. But the point is to not disrupt the lifestyle in which the child(ren) has become accustomed, that is, if the parents have the means to maintain the lifestyle. They are not going to change her private education, caretakers, and extracurricular activities because the parents divorced. Dany is a financial planner (and good at her job because she has worked in investing his earnings), and he is an entertainer, who claims to not spend much on vacations, but clothing, toiletries, mortgage. As an attorney, I loved reading the itemized expenses because it shocked the heck out of me that someone can spend $15K a month on clothes, but such is THEIR life. I commend them for getting it resolved and moving on.

2301 days ago
67.

Kelly    

Too bad they couldn't work things out - they seem to be a very sweet couple - atleast they can handle this divorce like adults.....no hollywood crap for this couple -they put their daughter first.

2301 days ago
68.

WriteRight    

The judicial system is so biased it isn't even funny and as long as the scales are so hopelessly skewed in favor of the woman, it will only ever be men who want financial equality.

Please tell me how it takes $22,000 a month to raise a kid ANYWHERE on God's green Earth???

It doesn't even take 1/6th of that!

To add insult to injury she made nearly a million dollars herself LAST YEAR?

$22,000 is an absolutely ridiculous sum of money to have been awarded!

Yet, I can bet not one woman thinks its wrong in any way, shape, form or fashion.

2301 days ago
69.

Jennifa O Jenny    

That's unfortunate they're getting a divorce - they've been together for so long.

2301 days ago
70.

How can you admire?    

It sucks that they are getting a divorce, mainly for the kid but it wan't as if it was out of left field or something. He was also rumored to be hooking up with the women that were around him, particularly 2 summers ago when he would frequent the MTV Summer shows. At that point, he was never wearing his wedding ring when young ladies were surrounding him. Then when the tabloids and gossip rags start reporting who you've been spotted "talking to", it's all downhill from there. And when it comes to that, the tabbies are usually right. First you get the PR Rep denial, saying the marriage is fine, then you get reports that the couple hasn't been spending time together, followed the next week by the couple being photographed everywhere looking find and happy, the rumors persist though and in 6 months, you have the seperation in which they announce they are great friends and still love one another and are trying to work it out and then there comes the divorce.

As for the child support and alimony discussion, his ex-wife could have gotten him for A LOT more than that. Her not taking that road though, is what everyone is cheering about.

2301 days ago
71.

GSXRChick    

#66 - I am a woman and I think it's wrong. Generally speaking the custody / child support laws in this country are EXTREMELY skewed in the woman's favor. Granted, for someone as wealthy as Mr. Johnson, that $270K per year probably doesn't mean much, and if he agreed to it, then that's his business, but to probably 98% of the rest of the dads out there who don't have primary physical custody and are forking over sometimes more than 50% of their take-home pay, it's the difference between surviving or not surviving.

The formula for calculating child support is outdated and doesn't take into consideration the "actual" expenses of raising a child. Add to that, the fact that although it's called "child support", there's NO LAW that says that the mother has to actually spend it on the child. She can use it for whatever she wants. Child support is also not considered taxable income for the recipient, but it's not tax deductable for the payor. Meaning, dad is paying taxes on money that he's giving to mom, but she doesn't have to claim that money as income and pay taxes on it.

Another little tidbit of info that might explain to all of you unfamiliar with the system, exactly why it works the way it does....most people don't know that every state gets money from the Federal Govermnent (called incentives) every year based on how much child support they collect. This amount is in the multi-millions annually per state. The money then goes into a general fund that each state can then use for whatever they want. This is the reason why most CS orders are so out of whack. The states want as many people to pay as much as possible because they more they "collect", the more money in federal incentives they get. It has absolutely ZERO to do with what's in the best interests of the child, but what's in the best interests of the state!! For anyone who doesn't believe me...please do a search on Title IV-D and take a look.

2301 days ago
72.

Dianna    

Two very beautiful people. Sorry to hear their marriage ended. I'm glad to see that they have worked things out in a respectful manner and for the sake of their daughter. Maybe one day...they will remarry. Best wishes to them!!

2301 days ago
73.

Chris    

Writermind, sounds like you have some serious issues with women. Read some of the other posts explaining the reasoning behind that amount being what it is. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? But you'd rather make your snap judgement about the sterotypical women. Please get some kinf of life.

2301 days ago
74.

Mike    

To Rosa,

You’re an attorney? I find it a little hard to believe considering you failed to realize two very important things. First, the child will not be residing most of the time at any one house. Section 7 subsection “a” clearly states that. Where in the world did you get the information to surmise that the child would be with her mother most of the time?

Second, the child support arrangement is that both parents contribute to a trust $5,000.00 a month respectively. As in $10,000 a month will be deposited into the trust to be used for the things listed in “ii”. The $22k a month number is the Rock’s POTENTIAL child support liability, not what he as been ordered to pay. The worksheet from which the number was derived is common in all dissolutions in which a minor child is involved. Although he could have been ordered to pay that, along with alimony, they stipulated to a different arrangement.

Let me put it like this, she is getting NOTHING from him. She contributes the same amount to the child’s trust as he does. In fact, based on their respective earnings, she is contributing a disproportionate amount of her earnings.

One more thing I want to say, the people here are talking about raising a kid on $22k a month. This child rearing amount is based on the belief that this is the amount he has to pay to her. Do you people not think that she owes a financial responsibility to the rearing of her own child? Just because he earns more does not mean that he should pay 100% of the cost to raise a child. If both parents made her, and both parents have equal custody of her, then both parents should bear the costs of raising her. One should not be made to pay more because they earn more. That’s like going to lunch with a friend who earns more than me and telling him that he should pay because he has more money.

2301 days ago
75.

LIESE    

mike you have some issue with some woman that you yourself are projecting on to this. you're so obviously still angry at this woman so i think its funny how pissed you seem to be about something that doesn't have to do with you or your kid. i was just adding something from my history that i thought would be helpful (which you are also doing i might add) so could try calming it down. in reality the kid is going to be spending more time with one parent than the other. that's just how it is whether the courts say it should be that way or not

2301 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web