Law&Crime Sidebar - 'Richest Man in Hollywood' Accused of Grooming, Abusing Estranged Ex

Episode Date: July 24, 2025

Entertainment mogul David Geffen is facing a bombshell lawsuit from his soon-to-be-ex-husband David Armstrong, who also uses the name Donovan Michaels. Michaels claims he was trapped in a cycle of control and emotional relationship that started as sex work. The couple reportedly did not sign a prenuptial agreement. Law&Crime’s Elizabeth Millner breaks down the new lawsuit with criminal and civil attorney Mauricio Padilla.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Check out Odoo to take your manufacturing process to the next level! Get a free 15-day trial today at: https://www.odoo.com/sidebarmanufacturingHOST:Elizabeth Millner https://x.com/_emillnerLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple podcasts or Spotify. He's one of the wealthiest people in the entertainment industry today. And right now he's facing down a bombshell lawsuit from his estranged husband who's accusing him of trapping him in an abusive relationship, then refusing to honor the promises he's made. The splashy suit is a hot topic right now,

so we're digging into all the details. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Elizabeth Milner in for Jesse Weber. He may not be someone you immediately recognize as Hollywood royalty, but David Geffen has more than likely had a hand in some of your favorite music and movies. The now 82-year-old

has been an executive for multiple music labels, helping advance the careers from everyone from the Eagles and Bob Dylan to Cher and Blink-182. His Geffen film company produced classics like Beetlejuice and Risky Business. He was a Broadway backer for the musicals Dreamgirls and Cats, and in 1994 he founded DreamWorks SKG Studio. According to Forbes, as of 2024, Geffen is believed to be the richest person in the entertainment industry worldwide. He has an estimated net worth of $9 billion, with a B, dollars. Known for his philanthropy, Geffen has donated huge sums of money to universities and art programs.

UCLA's School of Medicine is named after him. And so is Yale Yale School of Drama. Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York has a David Geffen Hall, and there's a David Geffen Theater at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles. But David Geffen's estranged husband says that behind the scenes,

Geffen used his money, power, and influence to satisfy his sexual desires to the detriment of those around him. In a 33-page lawsuit filed, by the way, by Brian J. Friedman, the same attorney who's representing Justin Valdoni in his legal fight with former It Ends with Us co-star Blake Lively, David Armstrong, also known as Donovan Michaels, in the complaint says that Geffen used and abused him. Now this is what the complaint says, Michael's is a 32 year old survivor of the foster care system who was pulled into the orbit of an exploiter

Masquerading as a white knight while hiding behind wealth philanthropy and fame Michaels did not meet Geffen in a boardroom at a gala or through mutual friends He met him on seeking arrangements.com a website where men like Geffen shop for the vulnerable the site Which now goes simply by seeking calm is a dating platform for the rich and famous. On its homepage, it states, quote, Seeking is the premier dating site for success-minded singles. Those who possess the mindset tailored for success in life also possess the same mindset necessary for success in love.

Our platform is designed to foster genuine and authentic connections between our members, leading to the good life, lasting partnerships and love." Sounds super sweet, right? Well the site also expressly states that sugar daddy situations and paying for sex are forbidden. But Michael says that didn't stop Geffen from finding him on the site and offering him $10,000 for one night, which eventually turned into monthly payments for sex work. According to Michael's complaints, Geffen used a toxic

mix of seduction, control, promises of love, and lavish displays of wealth to entrap Michaels in a cycle of dependency, submission, and humiliation. Behind the glittering facade of their relationship was a calculated pattern of abuse and commodification. Michaels claims he acted as a sex worker who was at Geffen's beck and call. He traveled with Geffen around the world on Geffen's super yacht, his constant companion for years. Eventually, Geffen reportedly told Michaels that he had fallen in love with him and he wanted to be an equal partner in the relationship.

The two got married in March of 2023, and critically, Michael says the two did not have a prenuptial agreement, so no prenup was signed. Michael said that the two entered an oral agreement that laid out Geffen's expectations of Michael's and what Michael's would get in return. The lawsuit reads, In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles County, Geffen sat Michael's down to discuss with Michael's a serious matter. Geffen told Michael's that he had fallen in love with him, respected him, and wanted to share his life with him as a life partner,

not as a sex worker. Geffen also told Michaels that he would no longer pay him for sex and the monthly payments to his check account would stop. Instead, he would take care of Michaels as if he was his life partner. Geffen was clear that this was an entirely different relationship and that he wanted Michael to take on more roles as any spouse would do for their partner. Geffen explained that in exchange, Michaels would share equally with him the fruits of his financial success and take care of him for the rest of his life.

According to Michaels, he had hoped to pursue a modeling career, but Geffen allegedly told him he didn't need to quote, waste his time doing that and didn't need to make his own money. The lawsuit states, Michaels would forgo his modeling career and render certain social,

emotional, and domestic services to Geffen and the couple, which included but was not limited to being Geffen's confidant, rendering emotional support and companionship to Geffen, being a travel companion to Geffen as his partner, not sex worker, offering Geffen constant advice on health and wellness, supporting Geffen's social, charitable, and political aspirations, performing services as a house manager by helping to coordinate with Geffen's staff, help to coordinate and throw parties and events, providing various home remodeling and maintenance services, and caretaking for Geffen. And according to Michaels, on numerous occasions throughout the couple's relationship, the oral agreements were ratified and reaffirmed by the couple.

I wanna thank Odoo for sponsoring this episode of Sidebar. Odoo is a powerful all-in-one business software that helps you manage everything, from sales to accounting, and yes, even manufacturing. Schedule your production, manage your assembly line, and fine tune your work orders with Odoo's all-in-one easy-to-use platform. Need fully assembled manufacturing software

that puts your business ahead of schedule? Well, Odoo has you covered. Plus Odoo's manufacturing app syncs seamlessly with your sales, inventory, and purchasing modules. So everything stays connected and running smoothly. Check out Odoo to take your manufacturing process to the next level and get a free 15 day trial today at odoo.com slash sidebar manufacturing.

Michaels claimed his husband often showed him off to his rich friends, bragging that he had saved Michaels from what was sure to be a life of poverty and sex work. Quote, during social visits, Geffen regularly bragged to his rich and successful friends, often while Michaels was present, that Michaels had a very difficult childhood

and that Geffen was rescuing him and saving his life. Invariably, Geffen would brag to his friends, including celebrities and media moguls, that because of him and his willingness to take care of Michaels for the rest of his life, the bad part of Michaels' life was over. Michaels found Geffen's public braggadocio for social virtue points demeaning and humiliating, and for that reason, he came to dread the social gatherings Geffen arranged with his A-list friends. In the lawsuit, Michaels admitted to frequently using drugs and alcohol and saying that Geffen offered him cocaine on their first night that they were together.

He claimed Geffen and Geffen's rich friends often did drugs like cocaine and molly on the superyacht. Michaels also claimed that Geffen enjoyed being dominant in the bedroom, something that Michaels says ended up causing him injury when Michaels entered a 12 step program to try to get sober, he says he realized he needed to be more independent and grow as his own person. He claims Geffen didn't like that at all and demanded a divorce. According to Michaels, when Geffen was parting it up in Venice,

Italy for Jeff Bezos, his wedding to Lauren Sanchez, he demanded Michaels vacate their luxury New York City apartment. He also cut off any and all financial assistance with Michaels saying that he had no money of his own and was essentially left homeless. So what causes of action is Michaels claiming in his lawsuit? Well, he's suing for a breach of oral contract as it pertains to equal ownership in all property and assets,

breach of implied contract and assets acquired, breach of express oral contract for lifetime support, breach of implied contract for support, quantum merute, which is a Latin phrase meaning as much as he has earned and is a way of quantifying worth of services or benefits provided without a formal contract, and declaratory relief meaning Michaels is looking for a judge to help straighten out this contentious situation. Michaels doesn't put down a dollar amount on the compensation he's seeking, saying that he needs to determine all the assets Geffen has that he might be entitled to. People Magazine reports that a court order was issued in May as a part of their divorce,

requiring both Geffen and Michaels to share their financial information, including things like bank statements and valuations, as well as property assets and debts. And they have 60 days to do just that. Gephens attorney Patty Glazier said in a statement to the LA Times. There was no contract express, written, oral or implied that has ever existed. Will be vigorously and righteously

defending against this false, pathetic lawsuit. Well, to help me get into some of the legal ease of all of this, I want to welcome back Mauricio Padilla, who practices both criminal and civil law. So Mauricio, I got to ask, what's your reaction to this lawsuit?

Well, first of all, it reads a little bit like a novel. I'm not used to complaints in civil court reading like the way that this one read. He kind of paints his client out to be, I think he uses the word vulnerable, that the website Seeking Arrangements is where, I guess, rich men or rich people go to seek out the vulnerable.

I would dispute that. I don't think I would describe people that have opened up an ad on Seeking Arrangements as vulnerable. And I think a lot of the facts in the complaint really don't go hand in hand with what he's trying to get the court or the reader to think, including that his client number one is vulnerable and number one, that someone should feel sorry for his client. This is someone that was accepting $10,000, you know, to have sex with the guy.

And he basically got to live like, you know, with a billionaire for all these years. So, I don't know. I read it. I also feel that I was kind of anticipating that a lot of these arguments would have been made in the divorce case. I understand that Geffen did file for divorce in May. And at least in Florida, some of these counts may have been decided, which is where I practice civil court, is in Florida, some of these counts may have been decided, which is where I practice civil court, is in Florida some of these counts may have been addressed by the divorce court. So maybe there'll be some type of pleadings in California regarding, hey listen, we're already in court on the divorce matter, we have a judge and some of these counts could be, you know, inextricably

intertwined with the divorce and the divorce judge would be the person best to make that decision. And are you surprised by some of the allegations in it in terms of just these oral agreements? In terms of the oral agreements, how binding are they? If there's nothing formally written down and perhaps no witnesses to these statements, does it just become like a he said, he said type of thing?

Or do you think that Michael's attorneys, they reference both the implied contract and express contract kind of, what's the difference between all these legalese in terms of this written an oral contract, the versus versus? Right, well listen, I mean, there's some situations where an oral contract could be binding on people,

but there's so many restrictions on when an oral contract would not be binding on people, but there's so many restrictions on when an oral contract would not be binding that in my experience, you know, it's rare to succeed because there's so many restrictions on when you really should put something in writing. And then there's something called the the Statue of Frauds that applies to Florida, California, and all states in the United States where it gives an outline of when an oral contract is not appropriate like for instance you cannot do an oral contract when it comes to anything regarding real property land a house has to be in writing you know if there's

certain there's certain limits like if it's more than a certain amount of money it has to be in writing if If it's something that cannot be performed within a six month period of time, usually it has to be in writing. And that's the way that the courts limit the ability for someone to say, hey, you know what? Four years ago, you orally told me blah, blah, blah, and now I'm gonna sue you for it.

Because then that would open up the floodgates and people would be suing for all types of oral promises. And I think the courts in all states, California, Florida, and all the states in the United States, they want to promote putting things in writing. That's going to be an issue one way or the other. I'm anticipating, you know, you're going to see motions to dismiss and things of that nature regarding the fact that none of this wasn't writing. And do you think that any part of you thinks that this

complainer this lawsuit was filed in order to possibly just embarrassed David Geffen. I mean, he's a huge name. He has a lot of money in terms of just the allegations overall. It just seems like kind of the the gist of it is just that Michaels was kicked out of the home and then Geffen had filed for divorce too. And it seems like maybe this is just kind of a counter

for what had happened in him filing for divorce. Like maybe if a blank check was written that maybe this complaint would have never been filed. But what do you think? Or am I just kind of throwing it out there? I mean, possibly. I mean, I would not, if I was representing this gentleman in the divorce, I would not promote filing this type of thing because at the end of the day, okay, you guys broke

up, you're married, and all these disputes could be handled one way or the other in the divorce. Even if some of these counts are counts that cannot be heard by the divorce court, at the end of the day, in a universal sense, it's a dispute between two people that were married. So you could have let that play out instead of taking the opportunity to file this lawsuit. So yeah, I think it could be a grab for attention and it could be an opportunity for them to include things that maybe in the divorce would have been irrelevant, would have been a subject to emotion to strike. And honestly, like when I read it, which I'm thinking maybe a judge is going to feel the same way, there's a lot in there that really goes beyond what you would expect in a legal pleading about feeling bad for him and all the things that he suffered. And

it really goes into a narrative that goes beyond in detail and in trying to garner sympathy for his client that you usually don't see. And at the end of the day, I don't know how many people are going to be feeling sorry for this guy. It is what it is. And I read on there that they got married without a prenup. Right. So, you know, I practice family law and I'm going to tell you that if you're a billionaire,

you marry somebody without a prenup, yes, he has a payday coming. Yeah. You know what I mean? Like he's not going to walk with nothing. I believe that this could have been premature. And then you're forcing him to lawyer up and really defend this. And his position, Geffen's position is gonna be like,

now you came from my throat. You've made all these allegations. You filed a separate. So now I'm gonna fight you on the divorce case. And imagine, anytime that you are litigating against a billionaire, that's an issue too. Because you're talking about unlimited resources. They're gonna come at you hard. So yeah, I don't know. I don't know what his game plan was.

Yeah, and I was surprised by this complainer, this lawsuit too, for that exact reason, that being that there was no prenup sign. And in terms of if there was a prenup that would have been signed, what kind of difference do you think this would have made? I would expect an automatic kind of payout if they were together for so many years, that type of thing, but maybe I think under what, two years, I wouldn't expect such a big amount of his wealth because David Geffen's worth a lot of money,

billions and billions of dollars. And so why do you think that there was no prenup that was signed? Obviously, he, you know, Mr. Geffen thought that he was in love and this was gonna to be for the rest of his life. I mean, anybody that gets married without a prenup is putting themselves out there. The reason that I say that I think he has a payday coming is no matter how long the length of marriage, when you're dealing with somebody that's a billionaire, from the moment that he got married to him to the moment that they separated, everything is marital.

So yeah, you're a billionaire. How much did you generate in 2024? 100 million? That's marital. How much did you generate in 2023? 100 million? That's marital. So that's the issue when you make that type of money that if you don't have a prenup, everything, every property that you bought,

every dollar that you made for yourself, not for his businesses, but that is factored into his own wealth. So yeah, I mean, there's money there one way or the other. And what kind of response do you expect from David Geffen's legal team in terms of, their response filing or something to that nature? A scorching, a scorching motion to dismiss,

motion to strike, motion for sanctions. They're gonna go after the actual attorney, I'm pretty sure, and say that, as an attorney you should never follow this for multiple reasons There's different rules in different states where there's a mechanisms that could switch the attorney's fees So there's like in Florida There's a there's one called 57 105 that you pretty much put the person on notice and let them know what you filed your client And yourself as an attorney should have known that there was not based in fact or law And then you should have never filed it

So I would anticipate a motion to dismiss and some type of attack where they're telling them We're coming after attorneys fees from you and your lawyer for even filing this and what's it like when you're representing a client? Where maybe it did start off as love and maybe it did start off as a loving relationship It's kind of hard with this case specifically because they met through seeking arrangements or seeking as it's called now. And you know, maybe it started off as transactional relationship. Then from David Geffen's point of view,

maybe it was actual love. They got married, they did so even without a prenup. And then it turns into this. So what is it kind of like, I think on both ends for David Geffen's perspective and even Michael's perspective in terms of just how It started off maybe good maybe great and then it just is gonna sour and I can see this playing out very publicly for a while

Yeah, well, I mean listen, you know There's something to be said about when when a relationship starts as transactional. It's gonna be transactional forever So the problem is is that now, no matter what, now that he broke up with him, now the guy's coming after him, people could say, listen, you know, you should have been able to read the tea leaves early on if that's what he was interested in in the beginning.

I mean, once you're paying somebody for sex, I don't know if you could ever get over that. And now we no longer have a transactional relationship, but we love each other. That's something that I guess Geffen's gonna have to think about next go around. As far as success on the merits regarding this case, I don't know, maybe it was a ploy to try to get him

come to the table and negotiate better in the divorce. I'm unclear whether he has the same attorney in the divorce case as he does in the civil matter. But it also could have been an opportunity to further attack his reputation. Even though I think a lot of people are going to read this and be like, okay, so what's the problem? Like if you're a billionaire and you want to marry some young hot guy,

you know, you could do it. And that guy, yeah, you're doing it to your peril. At the end of the day, the moment that he divorces you, you're back to being who you were. Just because you married him doesn't mean that now you may never have to work again, which is something that I deal with all the time, where, you know, people marry people that are extremely wealthy and they think that because I was married to you for two, three, four years I never have to work again.

There's no law that says that and you know Florida where I'm from has restricted alimony over and over again and they've made it more difficult for one spouse to make another spouse pay alimony. I'm unclear regarding the California law. I think it's a little bit better for spouses that are requesting alimony. I'm unclear regarding the California law. I think it's a little bit better for spouses that are requesting alimony in California from my understanding. But yeah, listen, I think it's gonna be interesting

what they're gonna file in response, but I can anticipate some serious attacks. Yeah, I expect a scorching kind of response just like you were saying earlier to Mauricio. And I wanna thank you so much for your time and your insight into this. Before we sign you off though, after the fiery response that we're possibly expecting

from David Gaffett's legal team, what else do you think is gonna be happening next in this case? Well, I mean, the way it works is they'll file motions to dismiss, and motions to dismiss are based on the four corners of the complaint. So you're asking it for it to be dismissed

based on some procedural defect or the fact that it doesn't satisfy the elements of the civil counts that are addressed of the complaint. So you're asking it for it to be dismissed based on some procedural defect or the fact that it doesn't satisfy the elements of the civil counts that are addressed in the lawsuit. But then eventually, if they overcome that, then eventually there's motion for summary judgment. And motion for summary judgment is when you're telling a judge, we don't need a trial because based on the law and based on the facts of the case,

the court can make this determination without us having to spend money on the trial. There'll be discovery, the discovery phase, which someone like Defen is not looking forward to that because it's going to be intrusive. It's going to be intrusive both personally, financially. They can go as far as trying to subpoena text messages, trying to find out who else he was sleeping with. It's going to be intrusive and intrusive for anyone and especially billionaires, which

with all the money they have and all the connections and all the communications that they have with other people. There'll be discovery phase and then at some point I'm anticipating a battle of motions for summary judgment to see whether or not this case is something that's going to actually go to trial. I'd be very surprised if it even goes that far but Mauricio Padilla I guess we'll see how this all continues to play out. Thank you again so much for your time and your insight into this case. I really appreciate it. Well, that does it for this episode of Sidebar. If you want to see more episodes, head over to the Law and Crime YouTube page

or subscribe to us anywhere you get your podcasts, whether it's Apple podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. I'm Elizabeth Milner in for Jesse Weber. And this has been Sidebar presented by Law & Crime.