Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does she have an obligation to use $214k per year of that $15.6m to support the kids as well?
How bad can the facts be? Strikes me as either bad lawyering or oddball law.
ETA: Bad lawyering, indeed. Strahan's lawyers put together the prenup that spelled out the obligations: 50% of marital assets plus 20% of income earned during marriage.
What kind of idiot lawyer would create a prenup that gives 20% of income earned during a marriage when most of that earning is going to come during the first few years of marriage?
|
Scroll, then post I guess.
Sounds like a legal malpractice case to me -- is the claim an additional marital asset she gets 50% of, income she gets 20% of, or both?
Even though she didn't ask for it, the judge gave her back interest on the 20%, so the 20% was supposed to be paid to her each year during the marriage. So I think he enjoyed dispensing a bit of justice here.
She's cute.
