Six years after Magic Mike star Channing Tatum and his ex, actress Jenna Dewan, split, and a year after their divorce was finalized, newly filed legal documents reveal details of their settlement.
The actors met in 2006 while co-starring in the film Step Up. They married in 2009, welcomed their daughter, Everly, in 2013, and separated in 2018. Their divorce was finalized in 2024.
Tatum and Dewan’s lengthy legal battle reportedly centered on Tatum’s ongoing earnings from his blockbuster film and live theater franchise, Magic Mike.
Sexy, funny, dramatic, full of friendship, six-packs, and steamy dance sequences, the three hit Magic Mike films tell the story of the lives, big dreams, and, of course, performances of a group of male strippers. Loosely based on Tatum’s own early career as a dancer in Florida, the films were also spun off into a Magic Mike-based reality TV series, as well as Magic Mike Live, a popular stage show featuring eye-popping dancing and acrobatics, performed in Las Vegas, London, and other major venues and tours.
In other words, since the original movie debuted in 2012, Magic Mike has remained wildly lucrative. The films alone have grossed over $350 million globally. The live production had already added over $125 million in ticket sales by 2023 — and it’s still running, so the magic lives on.
That’s where it gets complicated.
People Magazine reported, “During their years-long divorce proceedings, Dewan’s attorneys maintained that [the original] Magic Mike was co-financed with marital funds during her relationship.” Her legal team contended, therefore, that she should get half of Magic Mike profits because the “story idea … is an intellectual property asset that was entirely created during the marriage,” and therefore “community in character.”
Dewan’s lawyers also accused Tatum of “attempting to blur the lines” on what Magic Mike profits she’s entitled to under community property law: hiding assets by putting certain earnings into “an irrevocable trust” and transferring licensing rights to a third party, post-split, “without Jenna’s knowledge or consent.”
Tatum’s legal team, meanwhile, adamantly denied those allegations and maintained that Tatum “never withheld finances from her.” According to People, his lawyers argued that although the enterprise began during their marriage, Tatum had “continued to create and develop [it]” expending “extensive efforts since separation towards the enhancement of the Magic Mike intellectual property and related entities, which [Tatum] contends give rise to his separate property interest therein.” Tatum accused Dewan of using her accusations as a delaying tactic.
Dewan’s team pressed for a separate trial — known as a bifurcated divorce — to resolve the financial dispute. Although they ultimately settled, the terms were not made public until recently. Even now, many significant financial details remain private.
According to People, “The new documents indicate that under the Screen Actors Guild-Producers Pension Plan, both actor-producers received 50 percent of the other’s retirement benefits accrued only during their 2009–2018 marriage. Benefits are calculated by dividing pension credit earned during marriage by total pension credit earned.”
Reports also indicate that Tatum and Dewan reached an agreement — details undisclosed — to allocate a negotiated portion of the Magic Mike profits to her.
It’s also known that Tatum and Dewan have both waived spousal support and that they share joint custody of Everly. The co-parents have agreed to resolve any future custody disputes privately with a judge, according to E! News.
That’s about all we know. So, what does the case of Magic Mike reveal?
While most divorcing couples are not dealing with, well, Magic Mike-sized assets, it’s important to understand how California law views marital property, including growing businesses.
Under California’s community property laws, all marital assets — meaning anything acquired during the marriage, including a business — are considered jointly owned and therefore divided 50/50 in divorce.
Although this principle is simple on its surface, in practice, property division can be very challenging — especially when there are complex or commingled assets, evolving businesses and franchises, multiple income streams, lucrative (or potentially lucrative) intellectual property, significant investments and retirement accounts, stock options, lengthy separations, and so on.
Not everyone has hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Still, California is home to many entrepreneurs, tech innovators, and entertainment industry professionals with complex financial profiles and unique business interests that continue to grow and generate income over a long time — and that can result in divorcing spouses having very different points of view on what part their partnership played in financial success, and what constitutes community property.
The experienced, caring, and strategic California family law specialists at Schoenberg Family Law Group have been helping clients navigate complex high-assets divorces for over four decades.
By Debra Schoenberg
