Mickey Rourke’s $59,100 Eviction Notice Sparks $100K GoFundMe as Cash Crisis Hits

On January 6, 2026, actor Mickey Rourke posted a five-minute Instagram video that stunned his supporters. With visible emotion, the 73-year-old Oscar nominee adamantly rejected over $100,000 raised through GoFundMe to save him from eviction. “I would never ask strangers or fans or anybody a nickel,” Rourke declared, calling the fundraising campaign “humiliating” and urging every donor to immediately reclaim their money.​

But the story behind this unprecedented rejection reveals a far more complex crisis unfolding behind closed doors.

The $59,100 Eviction Notice That Started Everything

Three weeks earlier, on December 18, 2025, Rourke received a three-day eviction notice for his Beverly Grove home demanding $59,100 in unpaid rent. Landlord Eric Goldie filed legal documents with Los Angeles Superior Court seeking the back rent, attorney fees, and immediate lease termination. The Spanish-style bungalow, built in 1926 and once home to legendary author Raymond Chandler, had seen rent increase from $5,200 to $7,000 monthly.​

What happened next would expose deep divisions between the actor and his management team.

Manager Claims Campaign Was Fully Authorized

Despite Rourke’s public denial, his longtime manager Kimberly Hines insisted to The Hollywood Reporter that the GoFundMe was “100% legitimate” and created with proper authorization. “He may have agreed to receiving help but did not fully understand the implications,” Hines explained, suggesting confusion rather than deception. The campaign was launched by Liya-Joelle Jones, identified as Hines’ assistant, with a stated $100,000 goal that was quickly surpassed.​

The conflicting accounts raised serious questions about who was controlling Rourke’s financial decisions.

“I Don’t Need Anybody’s Money”

In his Instagram video, Rourke’s message was unequivocal and defiant. “I don’t need anybody’s money, and I wouldn’t do it this way. I got too much pride, man,” the actor stated emphatically. He repeatedly urged donors to request refunds, saying “Just get your money back, please.” The emotional rejection highlighted the intersection of financial desperation and personal dignity, as Rourke prioritized his reputation over immediate relief from mounting debt.​

But his manager painted a drastically different picture of his living situation.

Property Declared “Uninhabitable” by Management

Kimberly Hines described conditions at the rental property as catastrophic and unlivable. “The house has absolutely just gone. The refrigerator’s not working, there’s no water. It’s uninhabitable. He can’t live there,” Hines told The Hollywood Reporter in a detailed account. She alleged severe water damage destroyed furniture, floors rotted, rodent infestations plagued the home, and new property owners refused necessary repairs despite raising rent and changing locks.​

These claims directly contradicted Rourke’s insistence that he had adequate shelter.

COVID-19 and Hollywood Strikes Devastated Income

Rourke attributed his financial collapse to unprecedented industry disruptions beyond his control. “COVID and the writers’ strike killed my money,” the actor explained, combined with escalating problems at his deteriorating rental property. He candidly admitted managing his finances “very poorly” but maintained he still had “a roof over my head” and “food to eat.” His acknowledgment reflected broader economic challenges facing Hollywood performers during pandemic lockdowns and labor strikes.​

The crisis forced Rourke into temporary housing at premium rates.

$550-Per-Night Hotel With Three Dogs

Following the eviction notice, Rourke checked into a West Hollywood hotel on January 5, 2026, bringing his three dogs with him. Room rates at the luxury hotel start at $550 nightly, adding significant daily expenses to his already precarious financial situation. Manager Kimberly Hines confirmed plans to relocate Rourke to a Koreatown apartment within days, revealing she was personally “fronting the money” to secure housing during this critical transition period.​

Yet even as bills mounted, Rourke was reportedly turning away income opportunities.

Rejecting Work Despite Financial Crisis

In a surprising revelation, Hines disclosed that Rourke has declined multiple job offers in recent weeks despite desperately needing income. Industry sources suggest the actor may be “holding out” for higher-paying roles rather than accepting available work at lower rates. This decision raised serious questions about financial judgment and priorities as unpaid rent accumulated and eviction proceedings advanced. The behavior suggested disconnect between Rourke’s public crisis and private expectations.​

This wasn’t the first time Rourke faced eviction over unpaid rent.

Second Eviction Battle in Ten Years

Court records reveal a troubling pattern of rental disputes in Rourke’s recent history. Between 2016 and 2017, he faced similar legal action over a Tribeca loft in New York after allegedly stopping rent payments in October 2016. A court subsequently ordered Rourke to pay his New York landlord $32,511.06 after he failed to appear for proceedings. The repeated eviction battles suggested ongoing struggles with financial management and rental obligations spanning nearly a decade.​

Yet Rourke’s career had once promised lasting financial security.

From Oscar Glory to Financial Ruin

Rourke received an Academy Award nomination and won a Golden Globe for “The Wrestler” in 2008, marking a remarkable Hollywood comeback. However, that same year, he told the Los Angeles Times: “I lost everything. My house, my wife, my credibility, my career.” Early success in films like “Diner” (1982) and “9½ Weeks” was overshadowed by off-screen behavior, substance abuse, and poor career choices that derailed his trajectory during the 1990s.​

Recent controversies continued to limit his employment prospects.

Removed From Reality Show Over Misconduct

Most recently, Rourke was removed from “Celebrity Big Brother UK” in 2025 after just six days due to “unacceptable language and behavior.” The ejection followed homophobic remarks directed at fellow contestant JoJo Siwa, creating immediate backlash. His manager later claimed the show declined payment and publicly humiliated the actor, though the incident further damaged his already fragile public image and significantly reduced future casting opportunities in an increasingly accountability-focused entertainment industry.​

The fundraising controversy exposed deeper questions about autonomy and representation.

Campaign Paused Amid Confusion

Following Rourke’s public rejection, all donations to the GoFundMe campaign were paused while his team determined next steps. The fundraiser had exceeded its $100,000 goal within days, citing “health challenges, financial strain, and the quiet toll of being left behind” as justification. Manager Hines stated she would return all funds if Rourke ultimately chose not to accept assistance. The campaign’s uncertain status reflected fundamental miscommunication between the actor and his representation.​

The standoff revealed a painful tension at the heart of the crisis.

Pride Versus Survival

The controversy crystallized an agonizing conflict between maintaining dignity and accepting necessary help. While Rourke’s pride prevented him from receiving public charity, his manager’s actions reflected genuine alarm about his immediate welfare and housing security. This profound disconnect between the actor’s public defiance and behind-the-scenes vulnerability illustrated the psychological complexity of financial desperation among aging performers who once commanded respect and substantial paychecks in Hollywood.​

Rourke’s situation reflects a harsh reality throughout the entertainment industry.

When Fame Doesn’t Equal Financial Security

Mickey Rourke’s eviction crisis underscores a sobering truth about Hollywood careers: celebrity status provides no guarantee of long-term economic stability. Industry disruptions like COVID-19 shutdowns, streaming economics reducing residual payments, and labor strikes have created financial vulnerability among performers at all career levels. Yesterday’s Oscar nominee can become tomorrow’s housing-insecure tenant when income streams disappear. The case serves as a cautionary tale about fame’s impermanence.​

As of January 11, 2026, Rourke’s housing situation remains unresolved, with donated funds frozen and his pride intact but his future uncertain.