The world is experiencing a severe financial crisis, and poor Linda Hogan just is the latest victim feeling the pinch. E! News reports that the 49-year-old is headed to court this week to contest the highly unfair $40,000 US-per-month alimony she currently receives from soon-to-be-ex-husband Hulk Hogan, calling the sum a "drop in the bucket."
Now, before you poo-poo her for being unable to support herself on $480,000 a year, consider how much the woman must spend just on tanning salons and hair bleach. Doesn't seem so ridiculous now, does it?
Sources close to Linda tell E! News that most of her monthly stipend is spent on legal fees due to delays allegedly caused by Hulk, not to mention maintenance costs on their Bellair, Fla. mansion, valued at $7.3 million US. Compared to that, the extra $400,000 Linda is demanding is almost reasonable. Almost.
"It is all relative. That is what people don't understand," said Gary Smith, Linda's publicist, on Tuesday. "You can't compare what Linda gets to your own income of 50K a year, you have to compare it to Hulk's one time income of 12 to 16 million a year and the lifestyle that comes with it. That puts it into perspective."
Meanwhile, Charley Hill, Linda's 19-year-old boyfriend, filed a restraining order petition on Nov. 21 against Hulk Hogan, claiming Hulk tailgated his vehicle a few weeks ago, pulled up next to him at a stoplight and stared him down, causing Hill to fear that Hogan would "attempt to injure or kill him." Luckily for Hulk, the presiding judge thought Hill's claims were just as genuine as Hulk's WWE wrestling moves and denied the restraining order yesterday.
"This is just another blatant attempt by Linda Hogan to try to defame Hulk Hogan's character," Hulk's lawyer, David Houston, told TMZ. "We commend the judge on seeing through this ridiculous stunt and denying these baseless claims."
Not that we're taking sides, but can anything more be done to defame the reputations of the Hogan family? They could post a YouTube video of themselves eating live kittens and our opinion of them would remain roughly the same.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
