Michael Douglas with wife Catherine Zeta-Jones last week (Freddie Baez/startraksphotos.com)
Academy Award-winner Michael Douglas yesterday beat his ex-wife’s greedy bid to grab half of the millions he earned for his reprise of financial villain Gordon Gekko in the sequel to “Wall Street.”
A Manhattan judge ruled that Diandra Douglas’ efforts to swipe part of the megastar’s loot from “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” under the terms of their 1997 divorce settlement belonged in a California court, because that’s where the couple split.
“California, not New York, is the proper forum,” Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Matthew Cooper wrote.
MORE ON DIANDRA DOUGLAS: PORTRAIT OF A HOLLYWOOD MOMSTER
Cooper noted that a California court would have “greater familiarity than this court with both of law of community property and the facts of the underlying divorce.”
If Diandra refiles the case in California, “She’s going to lose on the merits,” said Douglas’ lawyer Marilyn Chinitz.
Judges there are more familiar with film industry cases, she added.
Michael Douglas, who is now battling throat cancer, is “thrilled,” Chinitz said.
“This action should have never been brought in the first place,” she added.
Diandra’s lawyer, Nancy Chemtob, said, “We respectfully disagree with the decision, and intend to appeal. Both parties are residents of New York, and the case should be decided here.”
Diandra, 52, had sued Michael, 65, in June, claiming that their 1997 divorce settlement entitled her to 50 percent of any money he received from movies that he made during their two decades of marriage.
Chemtob had said the agreement contained a clause that also gave the ex-wife money from any “spinoffs” of Douglas’ movies from that period, including the 1987 hit “Wall Street” for which his portrayal of Gekko won him an Oscar for Best Actor.
But Michael’s lawyer Chinitz had argued that Diandra had no claim on his money from “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” which opened in September, because that movie was a sequel — not a spinoff.
Cooper, in his ruling yesterday, noted that “the ultimate determination of much of the case may very well involve the interpretation and application of the term ‘spinoffs’ ” — a word Chinitz said California courts were well-experienced with given the presence of Hollywood in that state.