Sportscaster Nantz told to pay ex-wife $916,000 a year

I don't agree with this at all.

But then again, I don't agree with marriage either.

 

^well, there you have it.

 

NSFW

Spoiler

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NgIJdtSWtGA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NgIJdtSWtGA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

I agree with this. Everything I do right now I think my wife deserves half. They were together a really long time so it was all built up together. I have no problem with this at all.
It's when the woman gets a settlement like this after 2 years of marriage and the guy already had millions and she was some chick he met at the strip club.

 

I have no issue with this. Seems fair to me.

It's the custody stuff that usually strikes me as unfair.

 

By that logic (especially given that Nantz is in the entertainment field), all of Letterman's writers should be making as much as Letterman himself.

The power behind the throne is, nevertheless, still behind the throne.

I support limited alimony, for both sexes. But as we edge closer to equality of opportunity (no, we're not there yet: 75 cents on the dollar, etc.) in this country, findings to support the qualities of life which spouses "become accustomed to" should not stand.

 

You can't put a dollar value on the emotional and physical (non-monetary) support she provided him over the past 26 years. Is it worth almost a $1 million a year? I don't know.

 

i'm not familiar with whatever logic you're talking about.

 

yeah, i don't know either, but if he's banking ~$7mil/yr., well, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

And people wonder why some men try to have the wife knocked off. I would be giving it serious thought if I was going to have to shell out nearly $1 million every year to a woman.

 

That makes sense -- while they are in the partnership. The whole point of the divorce is that it dissolves the partnership. A big alimony decision implies the partnership is not completely dissolved.

Splitting current assets makes sense. They were in it together, owned things together, so an equal split makes sense.

Future earnings? You can argue that one partner made professional sacrifices for the career of the other, thereby forfeiting their own future earning potential and perhaps boosting the earning potential of the other. That could be worth something. But, in this case, has the woman really forfeited $1m/year in earning potential? Maybe, but probably not.

 

^ don't forget there is a child involved.

 

Maybe I misread it but other than the two houses, I didn't see him giving her any other money. So it doesn't look like they're splitting the money? And so in turn he just owes her money each year.

 

leroy420, REP. "I GUANT HAF, ET-TIE!!!"

Then don't make $1 million or don't get a woman. It's simple, sir.

 

"Under the ruling, Nantz must pay $72,000 in alimony monthly until he dies or his ex-wife remarries, and another $1,000 weekly in child support for the next two years."

$72,000 a month in alimony is pretty ridiculous. He'll be paying 72 times more for alimony than for child support. That doesn't seem right.

 

So, Dave....if you were a multi-millionaire and divorced your wife of 26 years, you would "give serious thought" to murdering her to avoid paying her? If you really believe that then you fail at life.

 

and by that logic employee or co-worker = partner

 

That's my point. He's paying $72k a month, which is where the $916k a year comes from. But no where does it say that he has to give her a lump some of $X.
Say that in their 26 years together they amassed $50mil together. The judge can either say, give her $25mil and be done with it. Or he can give her $916k a year.
It's not like she got $25mil AND $916k a year.

 

I have a feeling she won't be married for a long...long time