It's Mike

well of course she did. i'm not arguing that at all. but at the end of the day when you get married you're making a commitment to someone. And when you hit it big you can't just walk away without your wife and child still being responsibilities. If I started making making 7 figures a year (stop laughing ) and my wife quit her job to watch our son full time and we split in 12 years when he was 14. I would not be able to say "ok sweetie, you lived the good life, it's over now. Go back to work now even though I'm still making millions a year. Thanks for giving up your career for me sucker."

Is the money a little excessive? sure it is but so is his salary. And any judgment has to take this into consideration. The life insurance policy item that Isum mention makes perfect sense when you really think about it. And since they have joint custody of the child, it is not unreasonable that he be responsible for ensuring that she live the same life that she did prior to the divorce.

The fact that you make less in a year that she will get for "doing nothing" in a month sucks. But at the end of the day she was being paid alot more every month for doing nothing. This divorce represents quite the pay cut for her as it will for him. Divorce isn't cheap - I wouldn't recommend it.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

It's Mike

she'll have one of those too I'm sure.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

billy007

so any executive out there that loses a high-paying job for whatever reason should continue to get compensated as if he still held the job, because that's the level of a lifestyle he's accustomed to?

It's hard for me to say she "gave up a career" when she had a husband making millions. I'd happily sit on my ass all day if someone was willing to pay mrs007 a million or two a year. But if something happened going forward, I'd be grateful for the time I was able to be spoiled and know it's time to go back to work. Again, it's not as if she's now unemployable. She's been well provided for for 26 years, but now they're divorcing - mutually. She ceases to be his "family" (technically, at least), why should he be required to continue providing for her? Is she entitled to a decent percentage of what they have now? Sure, though our percentages may vary. I can even see an arguement for her still being on the life insurance policy. But I just don't see why she should be entitled to a monthly salary from having been married to him going forward.

Van_Heineken

Couldn't agree more. This woman got everything she wanted and when she couldn't be bothered to be supportive of his career anymore, because let's face it - Augusta in the spring is such a drag, she cashed out. Why do women do this? Because they can.

The problem with these type of divorce settlements whether it's against a wealthy man or a wealthy woman, is it sends the message that getting married is all one needs to guarantee themselves a certain lifestyle for the rest of their life.

Jim Nantz made himself a success through his own talent and hard work. His wife had nothing to do with it. If you feel the need to dispute that, ask CBS if the topic of his wife ever came up in Nantz' contract negotiations. LOL

Mike, the question I would put to you is why is Nantz obligated to support this women in such a lifestyle? If she wants to be without him, why can't she be without his money as well and support herself? What if Nantz himself had entertained hopes of retiring? I guess that goes out the window now that he's an indentured servant for his gold digger wife.

I guess that's my biggest issue with divorce settlements as they stand now. What ever happened to expecting people to stand on their own two feet?

__________________
The Artist Formerly Known as Van Heineken

It's Mike

i understand your point but i think you must remember that the child in this case changes everything. Let's say that she went out and got a regular job that paid her 40 grand a year. Would that even be enough to pay the property tax on the family home? Like it or not, the second the child came out of her, she became "family" for life.

If he wants full custody of their daughter and wants to split the assets 50/50 then I think you have an excellent argument. But as long as she is raising his kid in the family home, she is his dependent. No other way around this. I don't think he'd argue this. If you're arguing just that the amount is a little high, you might be right. I'd need to look through all the numbers to take a side either way. But at the end of the day, he is paying for his daughter to be raied in the manner in which HE chose for her. That costs a lot of money.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

It's Mike

because it's not just about her.

If Nantz offered to take full custody of their daughter and give up 50% of the family assets. Fine. That does not appear to be what happened here.

If Nantz has a lawyer worth a nickel (and i'm sure he does) the payments he makes would be linked to his salary in some way. If his salary were to drop so would the payments. This should have been settled out of court.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

Van_Heineken

On this, there's nothing mentioned about Nantz' wife having a lucrative career before they got married. That should be the key factor on that aspect of that settlement. If a woman chooses to sit on her ass as a "kept woman" and reap the rewards, then that's her choice. But to then claim that the rich hubby is in fact the sole reason the woman didn't achieve her destiny as a Fortune 500 exec is pure fabrication to justify a payout. The fact that judges justify these flights of fancy is what's most astounding.

If I was the judge, she would get a monthly stipend equivalent to the wages of a maid, short order cook and nanny, because that's essentially what her worth is on the job market. If she didn't like that, it's never too late for her to turn the world on its ear with all that impressive business acumen she's been keeping to herself.

__________________
The Artist Formerly Known as Van Heineken

It's Mike

and this is why you're not a judge - because you're an idiot. i hope you don't have kids. If you do i would hope to God that you don't value your wife in that manner.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

Van_Heineken

It doesn't specify what % is child support and what % is alimony, but typically, the far greater portion is paid to alimony with the ex wife having a lot of discretion on how the money is paid to the child.

Jim Nantz doesn't strike me as a deadbeat dad and I'm pretty sure his daughter would've been well taken care of whether the lawyers got involved or not. They got involved because Mommy wanted her piece of a significant pie.

__________________
The Artist Formerly Known as Van Heineken

Van_Heineken

Fair point. There should be an additional hooker stipend. Though to be fair, that's a diminishing asset the longer the couple is married.

__________________
The Artist Formerly Known as Van Heineken

It's Mike

What the f--k do you know about Jim Nantz and his willingness to take care of his kid?

The child is 15, the mother better have a lot of discretion on how the money is spent. Damn dude. Stop attending the No MAAM meetings.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

Van_Heineken

For the enlightenment of idiots such as myself then, what is the properly calculated financial value of a stay at home mom? Over to you Judge Judy...

__________________
The Artist Formerly Known as Van Heineken

It's Mike

the value of your family is everything you make.

I don't think that people that are worth tens of millions of dollars have any reason to argue over how the pie is divided. But in this case, the wife and child got about 1/4 of the pie and the husband for 3/4. I don't think this is unreasonable to the husband.

If i made 5 million dollars a year and it cost me a million to keep the most important person in my life and her mother comfortable, i would not complain. Would you?

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.

billy007

yeah it does - she gets $1000 a week for child support

ok, she gets a job that pays 40 grand a year. Great. She also is getting $52,000 a year in child support (which I am not contesting). If $92 grand a year is not enough to provide for herself and their daughter, and pay the taxes on the family home, then she needs to move to a more modest home.

And then we'll separate this part out: "But at the end of the day, he is paying for his daughter to be raied in the manner in which HE chose for her." So if one of my kids only aspires to be a fry cook at McDonalds, I'll be expected to make up the difference? Because I've strived to give them something better than that?

__________________

It's Mike

So you think that the mother should sell the family home and move the daughter away from her school, her friends, etc. For what reason? So Jim Nantz had an extra 3 million in the bank as opposed to 4 million? Really? this is the important thing here? I can't believe I'm having this discussion.

__________________
Voted Most Loved Mod in 2009.