David Geffen’s Estranged Husband David Armstrong Alleges Financial Concealment in High-Profile Divorce

David Geffen, the legendary founder of Asylum Records and Geffen Records, is facing mounting legal challenges in the aftermath of his separation from David Armstrong, a former model and dancer also known professionally as Donovan Michaels. The couple, whose marriage began in March 2023 without a prenuptial agreement, separated in February 2025 and formalized their divorce filing in May 2025. Recent court documents filed on October 23, 2025, indicate Armstrong is accusing Geffen of concealing income and assets in order to limit potential settlement payments, a claim that has drawn significant attention due to Geffen’s status as one of the world’s wealthiest entertainment executives .

According to Armstrong’s filings, Geffen’s recent financial declaration listed “N/A” for monthly income, investment earnings, and assets, a move Armstrong’s legal team characterizes as an attempt to present the billionaire as a modest retiree. Armstrong claims this is a calculated strategy to avoid full financial disclosure and reduce the amount of spousal support he is obligated to pay .

Armstrong alleges that Geffen is “prepared to win by any means necessary” and likens the situation to a “case of David and Goliath,” highlighting the vast financial disparity between the two spouses. He further claims to have been financially controlled by Geffen for much of his adult life and asserts his right to full disclosure under California law so that the divorce can proceed fairly .

Despite the allegations, court records confirm that Geffen has provided substantial financial support to Armstrong since their separation. Geffen has paid Armstrong’s $15,000 monthly rent and has given him $200,000 in cash since February 2025. Additionally, Armstrong holds approximately $5 million in jewelry, artwork, and watches purchased during the marriage . Geffen’s legal team argues that these expenditures, including funds allegedly spent for Armstrong’s rehabilitation, should be considered in any settlement calculations .

According to Armstrong, however, these payments do not constitute adequate spousal support, given the scale of Geffen’s reported $8.7 billion fortune. Armstrong’s attorneys maintain that Geffen’s failure to provide transparent accounting of his finances violates California’s financial disclosure laws and undermines the equitable resolution of the divorce .

In addition to the divorce proceedings, Armstrong filed a separate civil lawsuit against Geffen in July 2025, alleging emotional manipulation and financial dependency. The suit claimed Geffen breached a contract for “lifelong support” and had evicted Armstrong, cutting him off financially . Geffen’s legal team has vigorously denied all allegations, stating that no such contract—written or implied—existed. On October 21, 2025, Armstrong withdrew the civil lawsuit without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of refiling if mediation fails to resolve the dispute .

Mediation is now expected to be the primary venue for resolving the outstanding issues, including those related to spousal support and asset division. The absence of a prenuptial agreement and the relatively short duration of the marriage—approximately 23 months—may impact the outcome and limit Armstrong’s claims under California law .

The public nature of the Geffen-Armstrong divorce has focused attention on the complexities faced by LGBTQ+ couples in high-net-worth dissolutions. As one of the most prominent openly gay figures in entertainment, Geffen’s case may set precedents for how courts evaluate financial claims, power dynamics, and spousal support in same-sex marriages where wealth disparities are pronounced .

Advocates note that the dispute highlights the importance of full financial transparency, especially for partners who may have sacrificed careers or independence during the relationship. Armstrong’s allegations of financial control and emotional dependency underscore broader calls within the LGBTQ+ community for equitable treatment in divorce settlements and the necessity of legal protections, such as prenuptial agreements, to safeguard against economic vulnerability.

While Armstrong’s claims remain to be substantiated in court or mediation, the case has prompted renewed discussion about the intersection of wealth, power, and LGBTQ+ rights in family law. Legal experts emphasize that, regardless of sexual orientation, California’s laws require the disclosure of assets and income to ensure fairness—a principle that remains at the heart of Armstrong’s legal challenge .

As mediation approaches, the outcome of the Geffen-Armstrong divorce will likely hinge on the ability of both parties to provide comprehensive financial records and reach a mutually acceptable settlement. The case serves as a high-profile reminder of the legal and personal complexities that can arise in LGBTQ+ marriages involving significant wealth, and it continues to be closely watched for its potential impact on future cases involving asset disclosure, spousal support, and the equitable treatment of all individuals under the law.