Donald Trump’s tumultuous relationship with Marla Maples has been the subject of much public scrutiny over the years, and their prenuptial agreement is no exception. The details of this ironclad contract, which was signed in 1993, provide a glimpse into the couple’s rocky dynamic and Trump’s shrewd business acumen.
Maples, a former actress and model, first met Trump in 1989 while he was still married to his first wife, Ivana. Their affair, which made headlines in New York tabloids, eventually led to Maples becoming pregnant with their daughter, Tiffany, in 1993.
Despite the birth of their child, Trump was hesitant to marry Maples, wary of the financial repercussions of a second divorce. His previous settlement with Ivana had cost him a hefty sum, and he was determined to protect his assets this time around.
Enter the prenuptial agreement, crafted by Trump’s legal team to safeguard his financial interests. The details of the prenup, which were revealed in Vanity Fair in 2019, paint a picture of a man deeply distrustful of his romantic partner.
Trump allegedly inflated his net worth to $1.17 billion, a move that divorce lawyer Raoul Felder attributed to the common practice of overstating assets in prenuptial agreements to protect against underestimation.
The prenup outlined a meager payout for Maples in the event of a divorce: $1 million if they split within the first five years, plus $1 million to purchase a home. Child support for Tiffany was set at $100,000 per year until she reached the age of 21, with the caveat that it would cease if she obtained full-time employment, joined the military, or enrolled in the Peace Corps.
Celebrity divorce lawyer Raoul Felder described the prenup as “ironclad,” highlighting Trump’s meticulous approach to safeguarding his finances. “He was leaving nothing to chance,” Felder remarked.
Maples, despite her hopes of renegotiating a more favorable deal in five years, ultimately signed the prenup, perhaps out of desperation to secure a marriage to Trump. However, their relationship was short-lived, ending in separation in 1997 and divorce in 1999.
Maples never received the renegotiated settlement she had hoped for, ultimately receiving a total of $2 million from the divorce. Trump, on the other hand, emerged from the union with his financial interests firmly protected, a testament to his shrewd business instincts.
The story of Trump’s prenup with Maples serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the importance of careful consideration and legal counsel when entering into such agreements. Prenups can be valuable tools for protecting assets and establishing clear expectations, but they should not be entered into lightly or without a thorough understanding of the implications.