Linda Evangelista - who once famously said supermodels 'do not get up for less than $10000 a day', is demanding a staggering £28,000 a month in child support from the dad of her little boy.
The judge presiding over the hearing in New York where the request was made was reportedly so taken aback by the amount his 'jaw dropped'.
Matthew Troy said it was probably the largest support order ever made in the history of Manhattan Family Court.
Linda, 46, has a four-year-old son, Augustin James, with billionaire Francois-Henri Pinault, 49, boss of PPR, who own Gucci and Yves St Laurent. He is now married to Salma Hayek.
Linda, who is a multi-millionaire herself, says the cash would be used to provide her son with 24-hour nannies and armed chauffeurs.
The judge is set to make his ruling next month, but in the meantime, it doesn't stop tongues wagging about Linda's demands. But are they really so unreasonable? Surely to a billionaire it is just a drop in the ocean - would the figure be so different if they were in the UK and the maintenance was being decided by the CSA? What proportion of the father's salary would 28k a week amount to? For a billionaire, probably not all that much...
But, when a couple have no financial worries - as Linda and Francois-Henri clearly do not - is there really a case at all? How on earth could this have ever ended up going to court? Could it possibly be that this is more about playing games and getting revenge, than organising a sensible financial set up for the little boy in question?
What do you think? Has your jaw, like Judge Matthew Troy's, dropped at this outrageous sum? Or is there more to Linda's demands?