A Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a default judgment in Mickey Rourke’s eviction case on March 9, resulting in the termination of the actor’s lease and granting possession of the property to landlord Eric T. Goldie. This judgment ended Rourke’s legal right to remain in the Los Angeles home located on Drexel Avenue after he apparently failed to respond to the eviction complaint or appear in court. The ruling focused solely on possession of the property, not on monetary damages.
Background of the Eviction and Unpaid Rent Demands
Earlier documents revealed that Goldie, the landlord, had demanded $59,100 in overdue rent from Rourke, giving the actor a brief period to pay or vacate the property. By January, Rourke was seen moving out of the home, signaling his compliance with the eviction process. Following this, Rourke stayed in a hotel in West Hollywood, further showing he no longer had residence at the Drexel Avenue address.
Controversy Surrounding a Fundraising Campaign for Rourke
In connection with these difficulties, a GoFundMe campaign was started by Liya-Joelle Jones, who identified herself as an assistant to Rourke’s manager Kimberly Hines, seeking financial support for the actor. However, Rourke publicly disavowed the fundraiser in an Instagram video posted January 5, expressing confusion and frustration about the campaign. He stated,
“I’d rather, if I needed money, I wouldn’t ask for no f–king charity. I’d rather stick a gun up my ass and pull the trigger.”
Rourke also claimed he had no understanding of what a GoFundMe foundation was and insisted,
“I wouldn’t know what a GoFundMe foundation is in a million years. My life is very simple, I wouldn’t go to outside sources like that.”
Manager Comments on Fundraiser and Media Reaction
Kimberly Hines responded to the actor’s reaction by telling The Hollywood Reporter,
“We said, ‘Mickey, there’s some people that want to help you out.’ He’s like, ‘OK, great.’ I don’t think he understood, and now it’s taken on this media frenzy, and he flipped out.”
Following this, Rourke urged donors to reclaim their contributions, distancing himself further from the fundraising effort.
Implications of the Eviction Judgment for Rourke’s Living Situation
The eviction ruling formally cancels the lease agreement held by Rourke, which means he no longer holds any legal tenancy rights at his former home. With the landlord regaining control of the property, Rourke’s focus has shifted to moving forward after losing his residence. The default nature of the judgment suggests he may have chosen not to contest the eviction legally, potentially due to personal or financial constraints. How this development will affect his immediate housing status or longer-term plans remains uncertain.
