- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Don't hassle the Hoff, he's broke
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:25 am
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:25 am
LINK
True story: Hasselhoff's post-Baywatch career may have taken an entirely different course if his primetime NBC music special had aired as planned-on the night of September 11, 2001.
quote:
David Hasselhoff‘s financial crisis continues.
The former “Baywatch” star can no longer afford the $21,000-per-month alimony payments to ex-wife Pamela Bach as he claims less than $4,000 to his name, according to TMZ. Hasselhoff, 63, who filed court documents last month to cut off the payments, has shelled out $2.3 million to his former spouse since their divorce in 2006.
Modal Trigger
Hasselhoff with Pamela Bach in November 2005Photo: Getty Images
Bach, 52, receives $252,000 per year from Hasselhoff, but the singer/actor only grosses $112,000 a month. Though Hasselhoff spends $66,000 of it, with living expenses, taxes and Bach’s payments, he has minimal funds to save. And while a court hearing has been set for the end of May, Hasselhoff isn’t sure if his current endeavors will be enough to salvage the payments.
True story: Hasselhoff's post-Baywatch career may have taken an entirely different course if his primetime NBC music special had aired as planned-on the night of September 11, 2001.
13
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:27 am to Jim Rockford
I just can't imagine hating someone you married so much that you don't mind breaking them like that.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:28 am to Jim Rockford
That whore took him to the cleaners but he couldn't keep his monthly living expenses under 66 grand?
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:31 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
That whore took him to the cleaners but he couldn't keep his monthly living expenses under 66 grand?
When people reach attain a certain lifestyle they have a very hard time accepting less once they have become accustomed to it. I've always had a lot of respect for wealthy people who have kept their lifestyle a bit on the modest side.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:33 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
shelled out $2.3 million to his former spouse since their divorce in 2006
quote:I think you're mixed up. His special was on HBO in 1994. DH blamed low ratings on the OJ chase which took place at the same time.
Hasselhoff's post-Baywatch career may have taken an entirely different course if his primetime NBC music special had aired as planned-on the night of September 11, 2001
David Hasselhoff Pay Per View Commercial - 1994
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:35 am to Kafka
Thanks for the correction 
Posted on 5/22/16 at 12:42 am to Jim Rockford
quote:I mean, that's not that much for the OT
but the singer/actor only grosses $112,000 a month.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 1:01 am to SabiDojo
quote:
I just can't imagine hating someone you married so much that you don't mind breaking them like that.
It isn't all that uncommon, or restricted to wealthy people.
The only form of legal debtor's prison in the United States today is for men (women are almost never charged when they fall behind) who fall behind on their alimony/child support payments.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 1:11 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Hasselhoff, 63
Posted on 5/22/16 at 1:20 am to Bama and Beer
Posted on 5/22/16 at 1:22 am to Jim Rockford
Avg. of 1.3 million per year poor little thing
Posted on 5/22/16 at 4:11 am to Jim Rockford
I think 10 years of alimony payments is enough.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 5:29 am to stinkdawg
quote:
I think 10 years of alimony payments is enough.
Who even gets alimony any more? This isn't 1953. Bitch can get a job.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 6:33 am to SabiDojo
quote:
I just can't imagine hating someone you married so much that you don't mind breaking them like that.
It's not that she hates him so much. She was in it for the money from the get go. She's only interested in payments made to her. She's not thinking about him.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 6:36 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
he couldn't keep his monthly living expenses under 66 grand?
To be fair, when you're a world-famous celeb your living expenses become considerably higher than normal. You need private security for yourself and your family for example. I bet Charles Lindberg wished he'd had a guard for his baby.
That said, I have no idea how much higher those expenses are.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 8:22 am to stinkdawg
quote:
I think 10 years of alimony payments is enough.
I read this on Yahoo yesterday and that is what amazes me about this story. They split custody of the two daughters, one stayed with him and one with her and both are mid-20s now and the ex wife is still wanting 250k a month in alimony after 10 or 11 years. What justification is there that you should pay infinite alimony to an ex unless she was 100% behind him attaining money, even then they should settle on a 1 time settlement.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 8:55 am to Warfarer
Yep. This is fricked up on so many levels.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 8:58 am to Warfarer
quote:
What justification is there that you should pay infinite alimony to an ex unless she was 100% behind him attaining money
Because men just get fricked in these situations. On the note of lifestyle, suck it up and get a 200k home in a decent neighborhood. I'm sure it is embarrassing to them but it is what you have to do. For whatever reason, it isn't an option to these celebs once Hollywood is done with them.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 9:38 am to Warfarer
I think he caved in the agreement because he was filmed drunk with the girls in the house.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 9:45 am to GeeOH
quote:
I think he caved in the agreement because he was filmed drunk with the girls in the house.
I don't blame her for what she got up front with the kids in the house but what justification is there that, after 10 years and the kids being gone, she can't do without his money? It is ridiculous to be on the hook for so long on alimony with no kids being involved at this point no matter what he is worth unless she had a direct correlation to him having that money in the first place.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News