Jaime King’s Divorce Finalized Despite Claims Of ‘Duress And Stress’

The Superior Court of California has officially dismissed Jaime King‘s arguments about her divorce settlement.

According to legal documents obtained by The Blast, a judge recently signed off on the model’s separation from her ex-husband, Kyle Newman. This means the court upheld the duo’s divorce settlement despite King claiming she signed “under duress.”

In the minutes of the hearing, Judge Joshua D. Wayser stressed that the former couple’s dissolution has been granted, and the effective date for the termination of their marital status is listed as “May 14, 2024.”

Newman and his attorneys were present for the entry of judgment hearing; however, King was notably absent without a phone call or check-in made on her behalf. This non-appearance is surprising, given her refusal to accept the settlement terms.

The documents noted that she didn’t take the necessary actions to oppose Newman’s motion for entry of judgment on April 18, 2024. King was also accused of failing to file her own motion to set aside the settlement agreement.

However, she did file multiple ex-parte applications, where she claimed “she was under duress and stress at the time of signing the marital settlement agreement.” However, the Court refused to acknowledge her argument.

The minutes stressed the Court did not find King’s “duress” argument credible because it followed standard procedures amid their settlement agreement.

The documents recalled the former couple brought up the topic on September 19, 2023, the first day of their high-conflict dissolution trial.

The minute order from that day noted the duo claimed they were “close to settlement,” to which the Court allowed them to continue their settlement discussions.

“Hours later, the parties return with a signed settlement stipulation, which is filed under separate cover herewith,” the document explained.

As for King’s “duress” claims, the minutes stated the Court conducted “voir dire of the parties regarding their understanding of the settlement stipulation and their willing entry thereto.”

Although the Court did not have the transcript from when the settlement was reached, the documents noted that it had no reason to believe it did not follow its standard practice. Additionally, it did not recall King “reflecting any duress or stress at the time.”

Apart from dismissing King’s “duress” claims, the Court stressed that she did not timely raise her objection to the marital settlement agreement. Instead, her counsel had negotiated the terms of the agreed-upon judgment.

The model’s argument also lost credibility because her attorneys never raised an issue about setting aside the marital settlement agreement. The documents stated they failed to object during the Court’s first two orders to show cause for entry of judgment.

That wasn’t all; the Court granted Newman’s request for $9,100 in sanctions against King. The model was found guilty of delayed settlement, filing a notice of rescission concerning a Court order, and failing to comply with Court orders.

Last September, The Blast reported the contents of King’s and Newman’s divorce settlement. Per the legal documents, the duo would have joint custody of their two children, but the model would pay her ex-husband $429 in child support.

King was also required to cough up $1000 in spousal support until Newman’s death or remarriage. The pair were equally banned from making “derogatory nor disparaging remarks about the other to or in the presence of, or within the hearing of, any minor child.”

As for their properties, the mother of two would retain ownership of the businesses, assets, and bank accounts in her name. Meanwhile, Newman got to keep the $300,000 made from selling their marital residence.

Before reaching a divorce settlement, King and Newman were engaged in a heated custody battle. As reported by The Blast, the latter accused his ex-wife of possibly attempting to “abduct” their two children.

He filed a motion to the Court, imploring it to stop King from taking their children to Vietnam on vacation. In the filing, Newmann argued, “I cannot agree for Jaime to take our children to Vietnam on vacation after school starts — Vietnam is a non-Hague Convention Child Abduction Treaty country.”

Newman noted that a court order prevented the pair from taking their children to a non-Hague Treaty country; however, King had allegedly attempted to get their children’s passports without his knowledge or consent.