"Invalid" Urine Stains Ex-Model's Credibility
Stephanie Seymour's hubby hoping to get the kids
By LEANNE GENDREAU
Updated 9:45 AM EDT, Mon, Oct 19, 2009
The new low in Stephanie Seymour’s ugly divorce case is whether her urine is valid.
Her estranged hubby, publishing mogul Peter Brant, doesn’t think so and he’s using it to try to get sole custody of the couple’s three kids, the New York Post reports.
Brant, a polo playing art collector and horse owner, claims the former Victoria’s Secret model keeps handing over "invalid" urine samples for drug and booze tests, the Post reports. The issue seems to be what’s missing from her urine, and that’s it’s just too cool.
In court filings, Brant says Seymour sought treatment in 2000 for her Vicodin addiction and got a prescription for Subutex, a drug used to treat opiate addictions, the Post reports.
However, her urine "did not test positive for Subutex . . . even though [she] ingests 24 mg daily," the Post reports, citing Brant’s court filing.
Seymour, 40, sued Brant, 62, are splitting after 16 years together. Since they filed for divorce in March, the allegations get odder and odder.
In May, she said the couple was sharing a Greenwich mansion but he forced her to bunk with the maid.
Then there was the alleged skirmish between Seymour and Brant’s security guard, Joseph Babnik. She said the guard shoved her. He claimed she grabbed papers from the seat of his car and cut him when he followed her to the house and she closed the screen door.
Now, Brant says Seymour and a moving crew broke into the couple's Florida mansion last week and took $700,000 worth of stuff, the Post reports.
Brant not only wants to be the sole custodian of their three kids but he also wants to cut Seymour's time with them, order her to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and order her not to drink booze.
Divorce lawyers for Brant and Seymour did not return the Post’s calls.
First Published: Oct 19, 2009 8:35 AM EDT on NBC Connecticut
You Might Like
You have 2000 characters left
