Kevin Costner takes action to protect what he claims is his property as his estranged wife Christine prepares to move out.
According to new court documents obtained by PEOPLE, the California Superior Court judge presiding over the Costners’ divorce granted the 68-year-old Yellowstone The star’s request for a motion that would prevent Christine, 49, from removing certain items from the Santa Barbara, Calif. home where they lived during their marriage.
“Christine will be allowed to remove her toiletries, clothes, handbags and jewelry,” according to Friday’s order signed by Judge Thomas Anderle. The former handbag designer, however, is prohibited from taking “any other property, including but not limited to furniture, furnishings, appliances, and artwork.”
In documents filed by Kevin’s attorneys on July 13, the actor asked the court “to prevent [Christine] to delete [Kevin’s] separate the assets from his home and ensure an orderly process for the removal of his separated assets (if applicable). »
Kevin has alleged that under the terms of the prenup agreement they signed before they married in 2004, there is “no communal property”.
“[Christine’s] the lawyer stated in writing that [Christine] “plans” to remove many items that are not [her] separate property,” the documents said.
“[Christine] refuses to sign a stipulation that she will not unless and until there is a written agreement between the parties.”
Related: Kevin Costner’s Ex-Wife Christine Smiles as She Leaves Court After Being Awarded $129,000 in Child Support
” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/EQKiPem6u8ojptxst3mxng–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MQ–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/people_218/3c56fb85e7db042a882ff5d90144009f” class=”caas-img”/>
Costner’s legal team said they asked Christine’s side to detail the personal items she wanted to take, and received a “hopelessly vague and ambiguous” list in response.
“For example, the Claimant lists “plates and bowls/silverware” without specifying which plates, bowls and cutlery. She lists “family heirlooms and/or Christine’s gifts”, but does not specify which items she thinks to have been gifted to him (as opposed to both parties or children),” according to the document.
“She lists ‘Christine’s personal electronics’ but doesn’t specify what that means. Is a TV ‘personal’ electronics? Does she refer to home computers? Which ones?” the document indicated.
Some of the things on the list of items Christine wants to take, including outdoor furniture, gym equipment and art, are Kevin’s property, according to the document.
In an objection filed later in the day, Christine’s attorneys said there was ‘no rush’ and said their client ‘has identified all of the items she planned to remove from the house. via photos and written descriptions”.
Lawyers also objected to claims on Kevin’s side that there is no common ownership: “Many of these objects [in the home] were acquired during the marriage and are presumed to be common property. »
” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/98qZNgwthCbdXmGAoWCONA–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MQ–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/people_218/d2c368e74fe12f68571e6c5a1577b49a” class=”caas-img”/>
They went on to say that Kevin “complained that the reference to ‘certain pots and pans’ was so vague that he was unable to consent to their removal. About $24,000,000 and a claimed net worth approximately $200,000,000 (which we believe is an understatement).”
Despite Christine’s objection, Judge Anderle ruled in favor of Kevin.
At a July 5 hearing related to the Costners’ divorce, Judge Anderle also ruled that Christine must vacate the Santa Barbara estate – worth an estimated $145 million – where she and Kevin raised their three children. , sons Cayden, 16, and Hayes, 14. and daughter Grace, 13.
The decision left Kevin “relieved,” a source told PEOPLE at the time.
Under the couple’s prenuptial agreement, Christine had to vacate the property — which Costner had purchased in 1988 before he began dating Christine — within 30 days of filing for divorce. She filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on May 1, which means the deadline has since passed.
But Christine remained at the scene, saying she couldn’t move until she reached a child support agreement. She initially asked for $248,000 a month in order to set up what she called in court documents a “proper separate household” for her children.
Anderle temporarily awarded Christine $129,755 a month in child support, an amount he extended during a Wednesday hearing on the matter.
The decision, however, is retroactive, meaning child support will have to be paid forward or back from July 1 if changes are made to the final decision of the case.
Related: Kevin Costner Explains Why He Cut His Wife Christine’s Credit Card Limit To $30,000 A Month
The decision left Christine feeling ‘relieved’, a source told PEOPLE, adding that she ‘only wants to look after and support her children. The divorce is not their fault. She doesn’t want them to suffer or experience negative changes in their lives because of it.
The Costners’ legal teams will return to court on August 2 for a hearing on the estranged couple’s prenuptial agreement. Kevin asked the court that Christine pay $99,225 in legal fees he incurred to challenge their prenup agreement.
” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3nh4iZz0AVVxn5QWV7Nz8Q–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MQ–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/people_218/eaa0b74f61e3c9529658fea0a0a067c0″ class=”caas-img”/>
Gonzalo Marroquin/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images
According to legal documents filed by the actor’s attorneys, Christine may also have to forfeit her $1.5 million divorce settlement for challenging the prenup.
“If Christine in any way challenges or assists in challenging the validity or enforceability of any provision of this Agreement, she will forfeit any right to receive any payment, property or interest from Kevin pursuant to this Agreement,” according to to the deal, which the Oscar-winning actor’s attorneys cited in legal documents filed June 28.
Marilyn Chinitz, a marriage attorney at Blank Rome in New York (she doesn’t represent any of the Costners) told PEOPLE at the time that such clauses in prenuptial agreements were quite common.
“Lawyers call these provisions ‘in torrerem’ because it’s a fearmongering clause. They induce someone to challenge the agreement.”
Chinitz continued, “It’s basically saying, ‘If you’re going to challenge the agreement as invalid and unenforceable, then whatever you may have benefited from, I have a right to recover. “”
Never miss a story – subscribe to Free PEOPLE Daily Newsletter to stay up to date on the best that PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to gripping human interest stories.
Read the original article on People.