A Los Angeles County Superior Court has officially returned possession of actor Mickey Rourke's rented home on Drexel Ave. to its landlord following a default judgment filed on Monday.

The 73-year-old actor, who was once an Oscar-nominated Hollywood heavyweight, has now lost control of his rented residence after apparently failing to appear in court or respond to the landlord's complaint, capping months of financial turmoil that included tens of thousands in unpaid rent, a controversial GoFundMe campaign, and claims that Rourke refuses to work for less than $200,000 per day.

The situation has drawn significant public attention and raised broader questions about financial management among entertainers. What follows is a detailed look at how the eviction unfolded and what it may mean going forward.

Court Documents Reveal the Final Ruling

Court records obtained by Page Six on Tuesday confirmed that landlord Eric T. Goldie has regained control of the property. The judgment was entered by default, which typically indicates that the defendant did not file a timely response or appear before the court. People were the first outlet to report the development on Tuesday.

Notably, the complaint filed by Goldie sought only an order for "possession" of the home and did not pursue monetary damages. A representative for Rourke did not immediately return a request for comment from Page Six. The ruling effectively ends a saga that began publicly in December.

In December, a court filing demanded that Rourke either leave the Drexel Ave. residence within three days or pay $59,100 in overdue rent. The filing made clear that the landlord was seeking to reclaim the property after what appeared to be months of missed payments. That demand set the stage for the legal proceedings that culminated this week.

Rourke Was Spotted Moving Out in January

By January, Rourke was photographed removing personal items from the home. A U-Haul truck appeared in the driveway a day later, suggesting the actor was in the process of vacating. At the time, Page Six reported that Rourke had been staying at an upscale hotel in West Hollywood, California, where nightly rates begin at $550.

Also in January, a GoFundMe campaign was created under Rourke's name by an individual identified as Liya-Joelle Jones. The fundraiser sought to raise $100,000 to help prevent the actor's eviction. The campaign quickly attracted attention, though not all of it was positive.

Rourke himself took to Instagram to distance himself from the effort, posting a video in which he appeared visibly upset while cradling a small dog. "That's not me, OK?" Rourke said, adding that he "wouldn't know what a GoFund[Me] foundation is in a million years." He made clear that he had not authorized or requested the fundraiser.

The Actor's Fiery Denial of Any Need for Help

In the same video, Rourke was emphatic that he had not asked for "f – – king charity." He declared that he has "too much pride" to seek outside financial assistance. "If I needed money, I wouldn't ask for any f–– king charity," he added.

Rourke went even further in his denial, stating, "I'd rather stick a gun up my ass and pull the trigger … My life is very simple, I wouldn't go to outside sources like that." The raw and emotional language underscored the intensity of his frustration. Despite his protests, the financial difficulties remained evident.

Meanwhile, Rourke's manager, Kimberly Hines, offered a candid explanation to TMZ in January. "He's rich-poor if that makes sense," Hines said, noting that despite an influx of job opportunities, Rourke has been holding out for top-tier compensation and will not accept less than $200,000 per day. An insider quoted by the Daily Mail elaborated further, claiming that Rourke had "lived the life of a rock star with plenty of drug and alcohol abuse over the years."

A Pattern of Spending That Outpaces Earnings

The Daily Mail's source also painted a picture of a recurring financial cycle. "He has outlets to make substantial amounts of money by doing films and reality shows, but he spends it so fast that he is at square one right around the time that he starts making money," they claimed. If accurate, the pattern suggests a deeper issue beyond a single missed rent payment.

Lessons to Learn

1. Financial management is essential regardless of income level. Rourke's situation illustrates how even individuals with access to lucrative opportunities can face housing instability if spending consistently outpaces earnings. Creating a budget and maintaining an emergency fund are critical steps for anyone.

2. Responding to legal proceedings is crucial. The default judgment in this case was entered because Rourke apparently did not appear or respond in time. Ignoring court filings can lead to automatic rulings against a defendant, regardless of the underlying circumstances. Anyone facing legal action should seek counsel immediately.

3. Be cautious about fundraisers launched in someone else's name. The unauthorized GoFundMe campaign created confusion and embarrassment. Donors should verify that any fundraising effort is endorsed by its stated beneficiary before contributing.

Why This Story Matters

This case highlights the reality that financial instability does not discriminate based on fame or past success. It serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of ignoring legal obligations and the importance of living within one's means. For the broader community, it also raises awareness about the eviction process and the serious outcomes that can result from failing to engage with the court system.

In summary, Mickey Rourke has officially lost possession of his rented Los Angeles home on Drexel Ave. after a default judgment was filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, returning the property to landlord Eric T. Goldie. The eviction followed a December demand for $59,100 in back rent, Rourke's visible move-out in January while staying at a pricey West Hollywood hotel, an unauthorized GoFundMe campaign he forcefully disavowed on Instagram, and revelations from his own manager that he refuses work paying less than $200,000 daily — all painting a portrait of a once-celebrated actor navigating a turbulent financial chapter.