David Geffen, one of the most influential figures in the music and entertainment business, is facing a highly publicized legal battle that carries broader lessons for advisors and clients about wealth, marriage, and the risks of informal agreements.
At 82, Geffen is being sued by his estranged husband, 32-year-old Donovan Michaels, following the breakdown of a short-lived marriage. The case highlights the pitfalls of entering relationships without clear legal protections and illustrates how oral promises or expectations can become the basis of costly litigation.
Michaels, a former dancer and model who also goes by the name David Armstrong, has filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that Geffen breached both “express oral contract” and “implied contract” by cutting off financial support after their separation earlier this year. According to the filing, Michaels alleges that Geffen promised him “lifelong support” and that this commitment formed the foundation of their relationship. He contends that when Geffen ended the marriage, he not only evicted him but also terminated the lifestyle and financial resources to which Michaels had become accustomed.
Geffen’s legal team has forcefully denied these claims. His attorney, Patty Glaser, stated that “there was no contract—express, written, oral, or implied—that has ever existed” and vowed to defend against what she characterized as a “false” and “pathetic” lawsuit. Nonetheless, the case will now proceed through the California court system, where spousal support rules are well established but often contentious in high-net-worth divorces.
The two were married in March 2023 without a prenuptial agreement. Geffen filed for divorce in May 2025, citing irreconcilable differences, after listing their separation date as February 22 of that year. Court documents indicate that Geffen had already agreed to provide spousal support and attorney’s fees as part of the divorce process. On May 27, Michaels filed his own request for spousal support, attorney’s fees, and any additional relief deemed just and proper by the court. The court subsequently required both parties to disclose comprehensive financial information within 60 days, including assets, debts, income, and expenses.
For advisors, the most striking aspect of this case is not Geffen’s celebrity but the absence of safeguards that might have reduced exposure. California law typically awards spousal support based on the length of the marriage, often lasting less than the marriage itself. Without a prenup, however, Michaels may also be entitled to a share of Geffen’s earnings during the marriage. For a billionaire with assets valued between $8.7 billion and $9.1 billion according to Forbes and the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, even a short marriage carries significant financial implications.
Michaels’ complaint goes beyond financial support. It paints a portrait of the relationship as one rooted in unequal bargaining power. He claims their connection began on SeekingArrangements.com, with an initial $10,000 payment for companionship, and evolved into what he describes as a Marvin-type partnership—a legal term referring to nonmarital relationships that may carry enforceable obligations. He alleges that Geffen promised to treat him as a life partner, share assets, and provide lifelong financial support. Michaels frames the marriage as a personal sacrifice in which he gave “his body, his love, his labor, his youth” to satisfy Geffen’s expectations, only to be discarded when he sought independence.
The complaint describes this pattern as “abuse and commodification” and characterizes Geffen’s conduct as a breach of both explicit and implied commitments. Michaels’ legal team has gone so far as to compare the power dynamics in the relationship to a cultural parable, describing it as “a marginalized young man allegedly exploited by a billionaire hiding behind a façade of philanthropy.” The suit demands not only lifelong financial support but also a permanent residence for Michaels.
For wealth advisors, this case underscores several enduring principles. First, prenuptial agreements remain one of the most effective tools to define expectations and protect assets in the event of divorce, particularly when there is a stark disparity in wealth and age. Second, even oral promises or lifestyle assurances can be weaponized in litigation, creating obligations that courts may interpret broadly in cases involving financial dependency. Third, high-net-worth individuals are particularly vulnerable to reputational risk in addition to financial exposure, as private disputes are often litigated in the public eye.
The Geffen case is unusual in its celebrity profile but familiar in its core dynamics: wealth without protections, promises without clarity, and litigation that may drag on for years. For clients with substantial assets, it is a reminder that family governance and estate planning should extend into marital agreements and personal relationships. Advisors who counsel on wealth preservation must be prepared to raise these issues even when clients resist. The emotional aspects of marriage may make conversations difficult, but the costs of avoidance—both financial and reputational—can be immense.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the courts will determine whether Michaels’ claims have merit or whether Geffen’s defense prevails. But for advisors and clients alike, the lessons are already clear: financial commitments, especially in personal relationships, should never rest on assumptions, informal assurances, or oral promises. In wealth planning, clarity and documentation remain the best defense against costly disputes.
