Another travesty in divorce court

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 04:16 PM

I put a link in the Jim Nantz thread but the Oakland Press took it down. I found a new link. The subject deserves its own thread anyway.

Quote:

HARTFORD, Connecticut -- CBS sportscaster Jim Nantz must pay $916,000 yearly in alimony and child support to his ex-wife and give up their Connecticut home under terms of a newly issued divorce decree.

The ruling, made Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court, dissolves the 26-year marriage of Nantz and Ann-Lorraine "Lorrie" Carlsen Nantz. It comes after both testified about the breakdown of their marriage; Judge Howard Owens concluded neither was at fault.

I don't get it. If neither of them were at fault why did the court rule Nantz has to pay $72K per month alimony until he dies? The story also says that his wife did not support his occupation...so why should she continue to reap benefits from it until he dies? Brings a whole new meaning to "until death do you part". WTF was the judge thinking?

CBS' Nantz to pay nearly a $1 million a year in divorce

AbbottHallAbsyntheDrinker · 11-04-2009, 04:20 PM

Who the **** cares about this ****?

TheBobcat · 11-04-2009, 04:22 PM

This is why you just choke the bitch.

Wine_South · 11-04-2009, 04:35 PM

It was a settlement agreement. Ask Nantz why he agreed to it.

MattR644 · 11-04-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pantry

I put a link in the Jim Nantz thread but the Oakland Press took it down. I found a new link. The subject deserves its own thread anyway.

I don't get it. If neither of them were at fault why did the court rule Nantz has to pay $72K per month alimony until he dies? The story also says that his wife did not support his occupation...so why should she continue to reap benefits from it until he dies? Brings a whole new meaning to "until death do you part". WTF was the judge thinking?

CBS' Nantz to pay nearly a $1 million a year in divorce

Alimony judgments are modifiable, so he won't have to keep paying that much if he gets fired or something.

By the way, here's the acronym they taught us to remember the factors that go into a division of property during a divorce:

B - Background of parties
U - Unilateral or bilateral source of assets
L - Liability of parties
L - Longevity of marriage
S - Standard of living of the parties
H - Health of parties
I - Income of parties
T - Tax aspects (none)

Bracey Wright=respect · 11-04-2009, 04:46 PM

YouTube - Family Guy-Peoples Court Theme

First thing that comes to mind is the People's Court theme.

VanWilder · 11-04-2009, 04:48 PM

i'm not even reading the story, but i'm guessing the amount changes if:

1) loses job
2) kid turns 18

If that's the case, why not? He probably was the only one working, and she was a stay at home mom. It's only likely 5-10% of his salary, which in theory, is helping his kid too.

Of course, I'm too damn lazy to read the story, and if I did, would find out everything i'm saying is complete b.s.

mckenzie · 11-04-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pantry

I put a link in the Jim Nantz thread but the Oakland Press took it down. I found a new link. The subject deserves its own thread anyway.

I don't get it. If neither of them were at fault why did the court rule Nantz has to pay $72K per month alimony until he dies? The story also says that his wife did not support his occupation...so why should she continue to reap benefits from it until he dies? Brings a whole new meaning to "until death do you part". WTF was the judge thinking?

CBS' Nantz to pay nearly a $1 million a year in divorce

OT please!!!

frontrowatomars · 11-04-2009, 04:51 PM

two morals of the story:
1. If the marriage isnt working out, dont drag it on - get divorced. The longer marriage, the stronger arguement for alimony (among other factors of course).

2. Marry somebody that is as least as financially secure as you. Unless you are looking to get alimony, then marriage somebody that is foolish enough to marry you despite making way more than you.

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mckenzie

OT please!!!

It's sports related

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbbottHallAbsyntheDrinker

Who the **** cares about this ****?

Please forgive that it's not a fart, hotness or meltdown thread.

419Spartan08 · 11-04-2009, 05:05 PM

Now he needs to do his due diligence and make sure she doesn't collect for very long.

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wine_South

It was a settlement agreement. Ask Nantz why he agreed to it.

Do judges rule on settlement agreements?

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 419Spartan08

Now he needs to do his due diligence and make sure she doesn't collect for very long.

It's too late for that. DD should have been done before.

LA_Spartan · 11-04-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pantry

I don't get it. If neither of them were at fault why did the court rule Nantz has to pay $72K per month alimony until he dies? The story also says that his wife did not support his occupation...so why should she continue to reap benefits from it until he dies? Brings a whole new meaning to "until death do you part".

There's going to be long term alimony with a 26 year marriage with a huge disparity in incomes. And in high net worth cases, permanent alimony is not uncommon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattR644

Alimony judgments are modifiable, so he won't have to keep paying that much if he gets fired or something.

Don't know about Connecticut, but in Michigan the parties can agree to non-modifiable alimony.

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA_Spartan

There's going to be long term alimony with a 26 year marriage with a huge disparity in incomes. And in high net worth cases, permanent alimony is not uncommon.

She got two residences and it sounds like other ample assets were divided equally. They're divorced...why was she granted that much title to future earnings?

RPMadMSU · 11-04-2009, 05:29 PM

It's just a divorce...

Signed

RichRod with Love.

Motown Spartan · 11-04-2009, 05:31 PM

reach back like a pimp and slap the ho

Touchdown MSU · 11-04-2009, 05:33 PM

I'd love to start dating Lorrie Nantz. Where is Jim sending us on vacation this weekend Lorrie?

The Pantry · 11-04-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Touchdown MSU

I'd love to start dating Lorrie Nantz. Where is Jim sending us on vacation this weekend Lorrie?

Those same words were spoken by my ex's last boyfriend.

Wine_South · 11-04-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pantry

Do judges rule on settlement agreements?

judges sign off on settlement agreements. The article cLls it a settlement about ten times and even says it was amicable.

the Bray · 11-04-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pantry

until he dies? Brings a whole new meaning to "until death do you part". WTF was the judge thinking?

Til death... or unless she re-marries. Which, if I was her... would never be an option. Give up a million a year in order to re-marry? And, I'd think whomever she was with would be okay with not getting married, but spending Jim's money.

CivilEGR · 11-04-2009, 06:03 PM

Wouldn't a pre-nup have taken care of all of this?

sleepy · 11-04-2009, 06:13 PM

Normally I would be in total agreement, and say this is indeed a travesty. However, I think he makes major coin, so while it definitely looks like big bucks to me, it is likely a much smaller portion to him. So not that big of a deal.

This isn't quite like Paul & Heather...

LA_Spartan · 11-04-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pantry

She got two residences and it sounds like other ample assets were divided equally. They're divorced...why was she granted that much title to future earnings?

Because the property settlement and alimony are two different animals. Courts won't require people to invade their property settlement to pay their day to day expenses in these types of cases.

It doesn't seem fair, but you have to look at it from a completely neutral point of view and assume that both parties had an equal role in building up the marital estate and so both parties should share equally in the benefits. While Mrs. Nantz may not have been thrilled with his career choice, she was home raising the kids while he spent a significant amount of time on the road.

And it works both ways. We're seeing more cases where the woman is the primary bread winner and not only are they making the same arguments of "I made the money, why do I need to split it with him", but shoving the knife in a little deeper by saying, "he's the man and he should have been the one earning all the money".