This one hurts, I never understand these rulings when they are wretched excess IMO.

 

http://www.wlwt.com/sports/21508007/detail.html

That is just absurd.

I can see giving her the homes and the child support, but should he have to pay that much so his ex can keep her lofty lifestyle?

That's just stupid.

It's all relative.

 

The article said he makes $3.2 million per year just from CBS.

I will go ahead and address the elephant in the room: what the decision says, without saying it, is that Lorrie Nantz stopped having sex with her husband.

 

He is going to pay 1/3 of what he makes in salary alone, not including investment income and other assets, in alimony and child support. That's more than fair. Noone reasonably should expect that Lorrie Nantz should have to go out and work at age 50 when she has not done so in her life before, but has been a homemaker.

When a divorce case goes to trial, the family court judge will attempt to equally divide assets and make the soon to be ex-spouses split their marital combined income.

 

If it is any consolation, the positives in theis case are:

 

1.) Jim Nantz will be able to write off of his taxes about a million a year in the maintenance he is paying her;

 

2.) It sounds like he has a sweet little honey about half his age.

It's all relative.

 

The article said he makes $3.2 million per year just from CBS.

Do you think rich people should pay more taxes? I'm not saying saying either way but that's pretty much the same thing. I just don't see why this woman needs 1 million a year because of a divorce.

I will go ahead and address the elephant in the room: what the decision says, without saying it, is that Lorrie Nantz stopped having sex with her husband.

 

He is going to pay 1/3 of what he makes in salary alone, not including investment income and other assets, in alimony and child support. That's more than fair. Noone reasonably should expect that Lorrie Nantz should have to go out and work at age 50 when she has not done so in her life before, but has been a homemaker.

I completely agree with that sentiment but I just don't see why you need that much money to continue to be a homemaker.

Do you think rich people should pay more taxes? I'm not saying saying either way but that's pretty much the same thing. I just don't see why this woman needs 1 million a year because of a divorce.

 

:thumb:

One thing I can guarantee in this case, Lorrie Nantz will never get married again. Also, why should Jim be forced to keep her as his beneficiary on his life insurance for life? And putting her in the country club of her choice? Give me a break................as the boyz on ESPN would say, C'mon man................

I completely agree with that sentiment but I just don't see why you need that much money to continue to be a homemaker.

 

OK, look at it more bluntly.

 

Mrs. Nantz spends her life antiquing, going to her chalet in Switzerland, getting her hair frosted every Thursday, donating money to the poodles relief fund so she gets her name in the society papers, and buying an new dress, necklace and hat every Sunday afternoon.

 

Should she be required to discontinue that life because her husband elected to bang some makeup artist skank he met at work? After raising his child for 18 years while he was jet-setting the globe for sporting interviews?

Do you think rich people should pay more taxes? I'm not saying saying either way but that's pretty much the same thing. I just don't see why this woman needs 1 million a year because of a divorce.

 

They were married together. I'd imagine that they made a decision, together, for him to work & bring in the FAMILY'S income while she dedicated her time to raising the FAMILY.

 

Had she not stayed at home, raising THEIR child, she could have been out in the "real world" being gainfully employed.

 

In a way, think of this as compensation for the years raising THEIR child. Think of it as her opportunity cost.

 

If he was to die a few weeks ago, she probably would've gotten all of it.

No way she ever gets married again.

They were married together. I'd imagine that they made a decision, together, for him to work & bring in the FAMILY'S income while she dedicated her time to raising the FAMILY.

 

Had she not stayed at home, raising THEIR child, she could have been out in the "real world" being gainfully employed.

 

In a way, think of this as compensation for the years raising THEIR child. Think of it as her opportunity cost.

 

If he was to die a few weeks ago, she probably would've gotten all of it.

Like I said before, I agree that she deserves money but lets say she lives another 35 years and never remarries. Do I really think she deserves 30 million because their marriage didn't work out? No. If you want to get into the 'if' game she could have had chosen to get a job if she wanted so I don't really but into that argument. I absolutely feel that she entitled to an amount that she can comfortably live off of, but it's a lot smaller number then she got.