| Welcome to Giants Zone - NY Giants Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. In order to view and read ALL forums, you need to register. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SELL SHIT YOU MAY AS WELL LEAVE NOW. Please note: All registrations require email verification and manual admin approval once you have verified your email! Helps keep the spammers out. ![]() To Register Click Here. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Mikes divorce...part 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 29 2008, 06:54 PM (58 Views) | |
| G1.. | Aug 29 2008, 06:54 PM Post #1 |
|
G1
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds like Strahan cleaned his wife's clock in the divorce court today. "Last year, A state Superior Court Judge awarded Jean Strahan $15.3 million, in addition to child support. Strahan paid more than half the award. He appealed, arguing the child support was too high and that his ex-wife got everything she was due and is not entitled to $6.5 million from a pre-nuptial agreement. According to the opinion, the Strahans reached a private settlement about the unpaid money. The judges today said it was unfair Strahan was required to pay 91 percent of the child support since his ex-wife, Jean Strahan, was well-educated and employable. "Both parents have a shared obligation to support their children," wrote Judge Lorraine Parker. Jean Strahan's "employment opportunities were, in all likelihood, enhanced by her celebrity marriage. There is no question that as a healthy, educated, 41-year-old, (she) is capable of earning her own income," wrote Parker, who was joined by Judges Rudy Coleman and Thomas Lyons. The panel ordered a trial court judge in Essex County to reconsider the child support and to determine what needs the children have that are distinct from their mother. "Some of the expenses claimed by (Jean Strahan) clearly should have been deleted by the court," wrote the court in a 23-page ruling. A few of the expenses the court questioned were: that "the children" paid for a trip for their nanny and her family to Jamaica and gave their grandmother diamond jewelry. The panel also singled out that no explanation was given for why the girls required $30,000 in landscaping, or what $3,000 in audio visual expenses provided for the girls. The couple married in July, 1999 and in October their twin daughters were born. He filed for divorce in March, 2005. " Note he DOESN't have to pay for the insurance policy because he is retired.
|
![]() |
|
| BlueHeart | Aug 30 2008, 08:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Gifted, But, Twisted Fearless Leader
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So goddamn true. Nice to see some courts "get it".
What a fucking twit. I'm glad the ridiculousness has been eradicated. |
![]() |
|
| Gene | Aug 30 2008, 03:16 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Down & Out
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank God I had Michelle sign that pre-nup before we got married. I sleep well at night knowing the $221.47 in my bank account is safe! |
![]() |
|
| G1.. | Aug 31 2008, 04:29 PM Post #4 |
|
G1
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
...so sad but true!!!
|
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · NY Giants · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





9:41 AM Jul 11