[GSMITHBOOK] So, what happens when a billionaire horsebreeder and a supermodel get married and then get divorced? Well, according to the New York Post, ugly things. For one, Peter Brant, a Connecticut billionaire, is accusing his wife Stephanie, a former Victoria’s Secret model of being a high-spending clothes horse who spent upwards of $50,000 per week on clothes. My threshold question with that is, how is that possible? I mean does he mean EVERY week? Or is he exaggerating a teeny tiny bit? How can any human being spend $50,000 every week of their life, for several years, on clothes? I have to confess, I find this incredulous.
Then, he accuses her of drug use and apparently, has asked the court to order drug and alcohol testing. Wow. Is this true? I looked at the photo that the Post used in its report, and to be perfectly honest, the Victoria’s Secret siren didn’t look all that youthful and all that hot. She’s what? About 41? She looked at least 53. But some people just don’t age well. It hardly means they are abusing drugs and/or alcohol. I see lots of celebrities who admitted using drugs and who may have even been in rehab who look stunning – which actually contradicts everything I thought I knew about what drugs can do to a person. I always thought if you do drugs, even once, you will look like a Medusa or, like, a really unattractive English bulldog or something. I thought your kids would come out with 3 hands, and maybe even without body parts. But I see very attractive and beautiful people who copped to doing drugs who look stunningly amazing. So I don’t think that unflattering picture of Stephanie proves she is in fact abusing drugs. It may just be a ploy by her husband to gain the upper hand in the divorce. We explained in this post, http://www.divorcesaloon.com/new-york-divorce-attorney-on-when-your-spouse-brands-you-a-psycho-in-front-of-a-divorce-judge that when you have a custody battle, both sides can pretty much order the other to submit to drug and alcohol testing.
He also claims that Seymour was so hot to spirit stuff off their property that she cut a hole in a fence to pass items out, and has deliberately smashed some of his most prized possessions. “In the past the plaintiff destroyed a valuable piece of art in anger, and recently destroyed the defendant’s Kentucky Derby trophy,” Brant claims.
Is it credible that she “put a hole in the fence to pass items out”? I don’t know. It would seem so brazen. Plus what time of day is she doing this the middle of the night? Because then, if I were her, I’d be afraid of being seen, video-taped, and imprisoned for this. What rational person would do this?
Finally, Brant seems to be having a bit of jealousiosis. Stephanie has seemingly moved on with a businessman named Lance Maerov and she is bringing him home to visit. (Last I heard, home was the maids’ quarters at the Greenwich Connecticut estate she formerly shared with Brant.) Now, I am sure Stephanie wouldn’t be bringing home her dates to drive Peter wild with jealousy. But I think that is exactly the effect it is having because the Post reports that Peter has asked for an injunction to enjoin Stephanie from bringing that man anywhere near his kids (who are 15, 13, and 4).
Everything Stephanie and Peter here: http://www.divorcesaloon.com/?s=SeymourSign Up! Get Free Giveaways, New Ideas & Latest News Valid email for entry Thanks 🙂