Patricia Kluge: Billionaire's Ex-Wife Faces Foreclosure

Patricia Kluge, the 1980s society queen and ex-wife of billionaire media mogul John Kluge, has fallen on some hard times. Kluge was famously awarded the largest divorce settlement in history (a reported $1.6 million a week) but she seems to have figured out a way to spend it – and then some.
She's allegedly in default of nearly $23 million on her gilded mansion in Virginia, which made headlines for its outlandish $100 million price tag when it first hit the market in October 2009. Sotheby's didn't get that asking price, nor the drastically reduced $24 million it was eventually priced at. Instead, on Feb. 16, the 23,538-square-foot home will be auctioned on the Albemarle County courthouse steps.
Kluge's house isn't the only possession she's losing: Her antiques and jewelry have already been auctioned through Sotheby's. Her winery was foreclosed on and its inventory also sold off at auction. On top of that, several lots in the Vineyard Estates subdivision she devised for her property were also auctioned.
The Hook reported that according to court records, Kluge borrowed a whopping $66 million for the house, winery and subdivision.
How could Kluge have blown through her fortune and now lost it all?
An Outsized Ambition
From the sound of it, ambition got the best of the nude-model-turned-landed-gentry.
Kluge entered the Virginia wine industry in 1999, flush with cash and an outspoken desire to be the most prestigious winery on the East Coast. That kind of hubris irritated the rest of the Virginia wineries who aimed to promote the state's wines as a whole. Kluge wasn't looking for friends; instead she pumped a reported $50 million into developing the winery. Of that, $27 million was said to be spent on state-of-the-art equipment alone. In comparison, a source at one well-regarded winery down the road says they haven't spent that much in their 30-plus-year history.
Kluge spared no expense. She also lured renowned consultants and a winemaker from France whose salary was rumored to be $1 million. And while most Virginia wineries produce about 5,000 cases a year, Kluge tried to bottle 50,000 to 60,000 cases. But those in the wine industry say her unrealistic timeline is most likely where Kluge went wrong.
As one insider puts it, "The old saying goes: 'how do you make a small fortune in wine? You start with a big one.' But you can't spend like a drunken sailor because it's already expensive.
"You plant three years before you get useable fruit...it takes a decade just to figure out what you're doing," the source says. "The problem wasn't with the grapes or the winemaking, it was bad business."
Interestingly, Kluge's wines were well received. Kluge Estates was a regular winner in the state's Governor's Cup wine awards. But one of her many business missteps was in her pricing. The Kluge Estates New World Red, a Bordeaux-style red blend, was originally priced at $75 a bottle. That's steep for Virginia wine, no matter how good it is.
Bob Kocher, owner of Once Upon a Vine wine shops in Richmond, Va., sells more Virginia wine than any other retailer and is intimately familiar with the challenges of the industry. "The problem with Virginia wines is the first thing they build is a huge, beautiful tasting room that costs a million-and-a-half and they want you to pay for it by charging a high price for their wine. Napa started in barns, they didn't start in tasting rooms. [Kluge Estates] was trying to make a fast dime when they should have made a slow nickel."
The price of the New World Red was reduced several times until it ultimately went for $22 a bottle.
"I don't think she was a person that really knew the wine industry in general and I think she just went overboard telling people she would go global before even she went Virginia-wide," Kocher says. "I think she just overspent."

The Beginning of the End
The winery's debts piled up and Kluge did what she could to save it. She took out multiple mortgages on Albemarle House (above), the home she built with ex-husband Kluge and had lavishly decorated with rare antiques from around the world. In a January 2010 interview, Kluge told Luxist that she and third husband, William Moses, were looking to downsize. What she didn't mention was the true dire financial straits she was in.
A month later the price of Albemarle House was chopped in half, to $48 million. By April, Sotheby's announced it would be auctioning the contents of the estate in its first home auction in 20 years. The auction, which included a $3.8 million Imperial Chinese clock and custom $300,000 sporting guns, was estimated to bring in $14 million. The resulting sale exceeded that, earning $15.2 million. Next on the auction block was Kluge's jewelry. In late April 2010, Sotheby's auctioned her personal jewelry collection, a sure sign of the coming apocalypse for Kluge. That sale earned $5 million.
All was quiet on the Kluge front for the next six months while Kluge struggled to stave off creditors. Until October, when Kluge Estate Winery was hit with foreclosure. Last month the 960-acre winery and vineyards were auctioned but failed to sell when no one stepped up to top lender, Farm Credit, and its $19 million bid. So for now the winery stays in the hands of Farm Credit. Bill Shmidheiser, a lawyer with Farm Credit, said the bank hopes to sell the property and that $19 million is a good deal for any buyer considering the $50 million Kluge and Moses spent creating the winery.
Most recently the winery's inventory was sold at auction. Due to Virginia alcohol laws, only licensed sellers were able to attend. Much to the dismay of the state's wine industry the wine sold at bargain-basement prices and even had to be stopped after one case sold for just $2. A Virginia wine insider says that upset the other wineries who are now expecting a flood of inexpensive Kluge wines to hit the market, devaluing their wines. "It makes us all look amateurish."
The most recent foreclosure to wallop Kluge is that of her Vineyard Estates subdivision. Much to the displeasure of the rest of tony Albemarle County -- which is filled with multi-acre plantations including Thomas Jefferson's Monticello -- Kluge launched a plan to subdivide a portion of her 300 acres into the luxury "Vineyard Estates." The development would offer plots from $1.5 to $13 million and offer a selection of pre-screened architectural plans as well as a "global concierge" service.
Five lots in the 24-lot subdivision -- it's first phase -- went into foreclosure when the partner on the deal, First Colony Corporation from North Carolina, went bankrupt. The subdivision's 122 acres are assessed at $6.9 million and Vineyard Estates LLC owes $8.2 million, according to a property auction notice. Only one house was built in the subdivision as a spec house. In an interesting twist, Kluge and Moses bought that house back at the foreclosure auction: They were its only bidders. The home, Glen Love Cottage, is 6,600 square feet and assessed at $2.76 million. They paid $3.675 and currently live there.
"Vineyard Estates has suffered from a lack of sales as have many other real estate projects during the recent economic downturn," Bill Moses said in a statement.
The Final Straw
In an interview with The Hook, Moses outlined the fall of the winery. Apparently in 2008 an equity investor was lined up to partner with the winery when, on the eve of the banking collapse, Farm Credit called in its $34.8 million loan. Moses says it was a non-monetary default. The winery had simply not met its 2007 sales projections. Kluge and Moses' outsized ambitions had gotten the best of them.
"There was no way we could immediately repay the loan," Moses told The Hook. "We had over-leveraged the company."
And while they tried for a year-and-a-half to desperately to save the company -- negotiating with the bank and selling their belongings -- it still wasn't enough. In the end, Moses said, "it was like swimming laps with lead weights."
Carrie Culpepper blogs about design and travel at CultureFix.wordpress.com.
Forbidden America: Cold War-Era Map Shows No-Go Zones For Soviet Tourists
Tenants: Stench of Death Makes St. Louis Complex 'Unlivable'
Chili's Waitress Fired Over Facebook Post Insulting 'Stupid Cops'
2013 Billboard Music Awards: All the Winners!
2013 Billboard Music Awards: Arrivals Photos From the Blue Carpet!
Ricardo Cerezo, Facing Eviction, Finds $4.85 Million Lottery Ticket
Man Takes Dump In Background Of Instructional Workout Video
MIT's cheetah robot runs faster, more efficiently, can carry its own power supply (video)
Forever 21 Worker Fired After She Tells Her Traumatic Story
2013 Billboard Music Awards Best and Worst Dressed
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 20)
Senator McCarthy Jan 22nd 2011 4:59AM
50% settlement or huge spousal support is only justified if the financial success happened during marriage and the longevity of said marriage and if their are any off-springs.
Most of the case, it is successful rich guys that think with their different head and marry for a few years and get taken. Smart ones sign a pre-nup but real geniuses protect their assets using a good asset protection attorney before meeting someone "special."
In case of Kluge... give me a break.
silman Jan 22nd 2011 12:40PM
Kluge is famous for Crushing , people and business partners. These people made a tremendous amount of money off the "little "people. Now they are dupping that money , and property for 25 cents on the dollar. They are wealthy enough to do that ! These people would look at a normal person in disgust ! These people are the reason , impoverished and abused third world people , take up arms ! The money she is wasting and loosing would feed and provide medical care for tens of thousands of people for YEARS ! and that just the money the are dumping and losing ! Would you build a fantasy winery ? or say 25,000 lives . We know Kluges answer !
makeredhappy Jan 25th 2011 11:27AM
Very true....if a person has that amount of money and resources and can't keep themselves afloat, well, that says it all. They are meant to fail. Too bad real failure for them is not what it is for people with normal incomes...they'd know how to survive on a lot less then!!
silman Jan 22nd 2011 12:46PM
These monies were made from "You and I " the regular joes ! Now they are dumping our hard spent monies for 25 cents on the dollar ! Even so they will still be very rich people .1.6 mil a week is 90 MILLION a year tax free alimoney ? Peolpe like this are the basis for the extreme hatred of the " Moneyed". What she spent and is loosing would fed , clothe , and provide medical care for thousands and thousands of people for years. Would you build some fantasy winery or save the lives of 10,0000 people ? We all know Kluges answer !
Tim Jan 25th 2011 11:16AM
First of all, it is you and "me". Secondly, alimony is taxable. Thirdly, do you think the mansion and whinery plus all the equipment just appeared one day after she wrote a check? I would think hundreds of people were paid for their labors building and maintaining her home and whinery. Grape vines must be planted and cared for. Grapes must be harvested and turned into wine. The wine must be aged, bottled and marketed. All thiis requires PEOPLE -- you and me.
Host Monique Jan 25th 2011 12:28PM
Actually replying to TIM but there wasn't a reply option on his post.
___________
Tim wrote on Jan 25th 2011 11:16AM
"First of all, it is you and "me". Secondly, alimony is taxable. Thirdly, do you think the mansion and whinery plus all the equipment just appeared one day after she wrote a check? I would think hundreds of people were paid for their labors building and maintaining her home and whinery. Grape vines must be planted and cared for. Grapes must be harvested and turned into wine. The wine must be aged, bottled and marketed. All thiis requires PEOPLE -- you and me."
___________
Tim:
Actually, if you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, at least be correct and accurate about it when doing so.
It would be "You & I" ... NOT "You & Me" as you tried to insist upon.
You an me did not work at the WINERY. (NOT "whinery" as you wrote) Why did you and "me" not work at the winery? Because "me" cannot work at the winery by myself, but "I" can.
It is ONLY you and "me" when "me" can also be used singularly in the same sentence, as in, "The clown who can't spell made a comment directed at Silman and me." If you remove "Silman" the sentence still makes sense because the comment was then directed only at me.
Think before you decide to write BS criticizing another person's grammar.
Oh, and the only reason alimony is taxable is because the person being required to pay said alimony is getting a tax deduction for doing so. Child support, on the other hand, is not taxable because the person paying it does not get a deduction for paying it since child support is seen simply as a fulfillment of a family obligation, deserving of no tax deduction or inclusion in anyone's income. Alimony on the other hand, in some respects, is not seen as support of family, but more like a business transaction between unrelated parties.
Lastly, if the spouses so choose, the alimony payments CAN be tax-exempt to the recipient if the payor will not receive the deduction -- basically treating alimony payments like child support.
So yeah... consider yourself schooled.
Mitch Jan 23rd 2011 5:32AM
Why should anybody hate this ambitious bimbo and her money-laden ex? The court said he easily had enough jack to send her $90 mill a year, and she at least tried to build something with that dough, rather than lie by the pool blowing on her nail polish.
Great American stuff.
candace9685 Jan 25th 2011 7:46AM
Hey, Mitch, I think this ambitious bimbo would have been much better off lounging by the pool and painting her fingernails. After all, $83.2 million ($1.6 mil a week) buys a lot of fingernail polish and will pay a lot of pool boys. She deserves what she gets, but, then again, people like this (with $1.6 mil a week alimony) always come out on top.
choppertrike Jan 25th 2011 6:55AM
as usual, people who never really earned the money they were given, will usually do what they do best, spend other peoples earnings. this holds true in many cases, it called making a small fortune, by losing most of a large fortune. happens all the time, when the money comes easy, it usually goes easy. and some times quick
apairalypsenow2 Jan 25th 2011 6:59AM
She should have just sipped Champagne and munched Truffles, Pate' and caviar poolside! Dummy.
PATRICIA RN Jan 25th 2011 7:12AM
I do not feel a bit sorry for her, she is stupid enough to live in a mansion, why on earth would anyone want a big place like this, this is crazy. oh well live and learn
bandemann Jan 25th 2011 7:12AM
Boo Hoo! Another wealthy person has to give something up...Boo Hoo.
coptercaptain Jan 25th 2011 7:29AM
A nude model gets a few million dollars without earning it and then has to make quality decisions to keep it. That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
john foote Jan 25th 2011 8:02AM
THAT NUDE THING HAD TO BE A LONG TIME AGO !!
kstib98509 Jan 25th 2011 7:37AM
Gold diggers justice.
pucpaul Jan 25th 2011 7:45AM
The other comments are correct. She didn't earn the money, it was given to her, she is basically a greedy bit*h who thought she was smarter than everybody else. Glad to see her fall on her face. Wonder how many people are getting screwed by her not being able to pay back all the money she borrowed.
wcam396 Jan 25th 2011 7:46AM
I guess she must learn to budget like the rest of us, poor baby. Call me, I'll give ya a small loan
xpilot5867 Jan 25th 2011 7:47AM
If the middle class and lower classes in America are not angry and demanding justice from the architects of the world economic collapse, why aren't people like this either?
jfsinc1929 Jan 25th 2011 7:47AM
She was getting 1.5 million a week (78 million a year) and couldn't live on that or run a business on that? She obviously had NO business sense. Being "educated" doesn't mean you know how to run a business. Even those that have a business education will usually fail the first time out of the box. You learn in business as you go. The more you know BEFORE you start, the less you lose the first time. She knew nothing. She wanted the "fancy office" and nice business "car" to look important. She already had the money. It's like a football player that scores a touch down and then spikes the ball. Was that the FIRST time he scored a TD? Was this the first time she had money? Nope, just a dumb broad. And like a previous poster, it's doubtful she helped him accumulate that 6 billion.
john foote Jan 25th 2011 7:50AM
WOW ,THAT NUDE MODELING MUST HAVE BEEN 100 YEARS BEFORE THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN.