Jim Nance's divorce is final

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6700513.html

Has to pay $916k per year in alimony. Thought some of you would find it interesting.

Poor fella. He'll probably have to sell his Dream Furniture to fund that kind of alimony.

I've heard people pass judgement on Nance for this whole situation (as well as Letterman, etc etc). As much as it sucks to be in these situations, I don't think there's many guys that would turn down a roll in the hay with someone almost 40 years younger.

I think this pic kinda sums up the whole thing for me:

cripes that hurt just reading it. i guess its all relative, but he has to pay his wife monthly what a lot of americans would be lucky to make in a year. i like the added stipulation that he has to pay his ex 70 grand to join any country club of her choice. with that kind of coin, i wonder if she will ever marry again.

My mouse is embedded in my drywall from reading that. I know Jimmy wasn't faithful, but if all facts are being told here, she left the marriage long ago and pushed their marriage to the breaking point. To quote the only insightful thing that Kanye has given us, "We want prenup, we want prenup".

Sorry rant off.

wow..he makes all that money just sitting there on tv and saying a few words..whiles wearing a suit.
Talk about overpaid worker.
It's just money, looks like he won't be on the streets despite dishing out that cash to her, and she is entitled to it. We live under laws...whether we like it or not. You break it, you own it...and lawyers are great. I am not a lawyer. This is a capitalist nation afterall...just take a peek on Wall Street.

You have to make sure you get the divorce first, then the 20-something girlfriend. Doing it in the reverse order is not a good idea. And, in 20 years, he will have paid the ex-wife 18 Million and his girlfriend will look just like his wife does now.

[quote]You have to make sure you get the divorce first, then the 20-something girlfriend. Doing it in the reverse order is not a good idea. And, in 20 years, he will have paid the ex-wife 18 Million and his girlfriend will look just like his wife does now.[/quote]

lol..and since men have owned the economic upper hand in society, he can find another 18 year old in 20 years. Once bitten, one more bite needed.
He still would have had to pay up..but probably not as vengefully

I guess in this situation it is better to have an A flex shaft rather than an S or X flex!

Just another great reason for never getting married!

Thankfully for him he got divorced in Connecticut and not California. He actually did pretty well: two properties, joint custody of his daughter and saved roughly $600,000 a year in alimony/child support.

The guy who is going to be taken to the cleaners is Frank McCourt, owner of the LA Dodgers. He's going to give up close to $500 million. Yikes.

If he needs a place to stay I guess there's always Butler Cabin. LOL!

Seriously, $72K a MONTH!!!!! Who the F needs that much money to live? $1K a WEEK in child support???? Give me a friggin break.

[quote][If he needs a place to stay I guess there's always Butler Cabin. LOL!

Seriously, $72K a MONTH!!!!! Who the F needs that much money to live? $1K a WEEK in child support???? Give me a friggin break.
/quote]

you know..if Nance wants to solve this, he can switch careers and join the many of us who don't make the monies he makes for wearing a suit and saying a few words. LOL.
Heck he could flip burgers and this payment will be reduced to match his new income..I guess he won't...he is still doing just fine.
Also you are supposed to put your ex-family up in the style they are used to..thanks to you..This is the USofA. A nation of laws. There are third world nations where the man just kicks the wife out..end of story.

I can pretty much guarantee that my divorce settlement hurts me more than his hurts him.

If I'd shot her when I first thought about it, I'd be out of jail by now. I feel a country song coming on...

The Judge said he did not consider the fact that Nance was seeing someone
else before the divorce proceedings to be a problem, because of all the failed
attempts at counceling had shown the marraige was already done for.

[quote name='electroleum' post='2044691' date='Nov 4 2009, 02:04 AM']I've heard people pass judgement on Nance for this whole situation (as well as Letterman, etc etc). As much as it sucks to be in these situations, I don't think there's many guys that would turn down a roll in the hay with someone almost 40 years younger.

I think this pic kinda sums up the whole thing for me:[/quote]

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Who's your sampling, John Edwards and Bill Clinton (and I'll throw in Rush Limbaugh and Mark Sanford to show "fair and balanced"). I've been married 32+ years and your "roll in the hay" comment is the farthest thing from my mind. My parents were married for 42 years before my mom passed away. My wife's parents the same amount when her father passd. Neither spouse remarried. And I know a lot of other people with a similar mind frame. I guess it's how you're brought up; value your relationship and honor that commitment. If Nantz is getting his "second childhood", then fine; and he should pay for that privilege, which he will.

[quote name='Simp' post='2045109' date='Nov 4 2009, 10:40 AM']If he needs a place to stay I guess there's always Butler Cabin. LOL!

Seriously, $72K a MONTH!!!!! Who the F needs that much money to live? $1K a WEEK in child support???? Give me a friggin break.[/quote]

it's called the "lifestyle we've grown accustomed to."

[quote name='pickerjohn' post='2045347' date='Nov 4 2009, 12:22 PM']The Judge said he did not consider the fact that Nance was seeing someone
else before the divorce proceedings to be a problem, because of all the failed
attempts at counceling had shown the marraige was already done for.[/quote]

With that "personal" comment, I wonder if the judge, as part of the agreement, got an autograph, Master's tickets, and a round of golf with Tiger.

[quote name='Rudders' post='2045391' date='Nov 4 2009, 12:47 PM'][quote name='Simp' post='2045109' date='Nov 4 2009, 10:40 AM']If he needs a place to stay I guess there's always Butler Cabin. LOL!

Seriously, $72K a MONTH!!!!! Who the F needs that much money to live? $1K a WEEK in child support???? Give me a friggin break.[/quote]

it's called [b]the "lifestyle we've grown accustomed to[/b]."
[/quote]

Hey, what about the [b]wifestyle [/b]Nantz grew accustomed to? And if the wife's lawyer's fee was 30%, the lawyer is also set for life.

I'm gonna change careers

8 the hard way, Esquire
Golf-related Divorces my specialty
Offices in Pinehurst, Agusta and Myrtle Beach

[quote name='Rudders' post='2045386' date='Nov 4 2009, 01:45 PM'][quote name='electroleum' post='2044691' date='Nov 4 2009, 02:04 AM']I've heard people pass judgement on Nance for this whole situation (as well as Letterman, etc etc). As much as it sucks to be in these situations, I don't think there's many guys that would turn down a roll in the hay with someone almost 40 years younger.

I think this pic kinda sums up the whole thing for me:[/quote]

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Who's your sampling, John Edwards and Bill Clinton (and I'll throw in Rush Limbaugh and Mark Sanford to show "fair and balanced"). I've been married 32+ years and your "roll in the hay" comment is the farthest thing from my mind. My parents were married for 42 years before my mom passed away. My wife's parents the same amount when her father passd. Neither spouse remarried. And I know a lot of other people with a similar mind frame. I guess it's how you're brought up; value your relationship and honor that commitment. If Nantz is getting his "second childhood", then fine; and he should pay for that privilege, which he will.
[/quote]

+1

I am married and would turn down a roll in the hay with someone younger, anyone for that matter. No alimony on Australia, we are no 3rd world country!!

[quote name='aussiehack' post='2047941' date='Nov 5 2009, 05:04 PM'][quote name='Rudders' post='2045386' date='Nov 4 2009, 01:45 PM'][quote name='electroleum' post='2044691' date='Nov 4 2009, 02:04 AM']I've heard people pass judgement on Nance for this whole situation (as well as Letterman, etc etc). As much as it sucks to be in these situations, I don't think there's many guys that would turn down a roll in the hay with someone almost 40 years younger.

I think this pic kinda sums up the whole thing for me:[/quote]

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Who's your sampling, John Edwards and Bill Clinton (and I'll throw in Rush Limbaugh and Mark Sanford to show "fair and balanced"). I've been married 32+ years and your "roll in the hay" comment is the farthest thing from my mind. My parents were married for 42 years before my mom passed away. My wife's parents the same amount when her father passd. Neither spouse remarried. And I know a lot of other people with a similar mind frame. I guess it's how you're brought up; value your relationship and honor that commitment. If Nantz is getting his "second childhood", then fine; and he should pay for that privilege, which he will.
[/quote]

+1

I am married and would turn down a roll in the hay with someone younger, anyone for that matter. No alimony on Australia, we are no 3rd world country!!
[/quote]

Queensland? Go Rodney!!!

Too bad the doof didnt file for the divorce in Texas, of course that is IF he could have (they apparently had a residence here). The alimony laws in Texas are FAR more favorable. The lesser of $2500/month or 20% of the spouses gross monthly income/month, and for a period of not more than 3 years. AND she would have to qualify for it.

[quote name='bigred90gt' post='2048736' date='Nov 5 2009, 11:31 PM']Too bad the doof didnt file for the divorce in Texas, of course that is IF he could have (they apparently had a residence here). The alimony laws in Texas are FAR more favorable. The lesser of $2500/month or 20% of the spouses gross monthly income/month, and for a period of not more than 3 years. AND she would have to qualify for it.[/quote]

Gee I wonder if the wife's lawyer didn't know that and filed in the state more favorable to his client's case... you think?

[quote name='arb44' post='2049083' date='Nov 6 2009, 07:28 AM'][quote name='bigred90gt' post='2048736' date='Nov 5 2009, 11:31 PM']Too bad the doof didnt file for the divorce in Texas, of course that is IF he could have (they apparently had a residence here). The alimony laws in Texas are FAR more favorable. The lesser of $2500/month or 20% of the spouses gross monthly income/month, and for a period of not more than 3 years. AND she would have to qualify for it.[/quote]

Gee I wonder if the wife's lawyer didn't know that and filed in the state more favorable to his client's case... you think?

[/quote]

[quote]Nantz, described by Owens as “our nation’s most prominent sportscaster,” filed for divorce last year from his wife after years of marriage counseling, according to the decree.[/quote]

Gee, if you actually read the article, it says HE filed for the divorce. Reading skills lacking this morning?

[quote name='Rudders' post='2045391' date='Nov 4 2009, 12:47 PM'][quote name='Simp' post='2045109' date='Nov 4 2009, 10:40 AM']If he needs a place to stay I guess there's always Butler Cabin. LOL!

Seriously, $72K a MONTH!!!!! Who the F needs that much money to live? $1K a WEEK in child support???? Give me a friggin break.[/quote]

it's called the "lifestyle we've grown accustomed to."
[/quote]

Rudders, would you happen to be an attorney? Maybe one that has defended some women through divorce cases? It sure sounds like it, haha.