- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Orgeron fights back against Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that he owes ex-wife $8 million
Posted on 7/12/25 at 8:36 am to lsupride87
Posted on 7/12/25 at 8:36 am to lsupride87
He didn’t earn that buyout. Joe Burrow did.
0
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:02 am to Godfather1
quote:
Translation: “I’ve already blown through most of that $17 million
What he hasn’t blown through already will be blown through fighting this motion.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:28 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Jesus, I wish he would simply go away. Thanks for 2019, but go away.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:36 am to BiggaGeauxrilla
quote:
I’d have less problem with a 1/3 or a 1/4 but half is a bit much just in my mind. But you know that going into it.
The argument isn’t in the percent she gets. It’s whether or not she’s entitled to the buyout. If she’s entitled to anything, it would be half bc it’s community property. In other words, she should get 0 or 50%. There is no in between.
The merits aside, O is the dumbass for signing the deal and then filing for divorce after. He should have waited until after he filed to sign any new contract.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:49 am to paper tiger
quote:
The conduct of either spouse has little to do with how they share community property. If the money was earned during the marriage, she gets half.
Contract was signed well within the community property regime.
Marriage with no prenup, then pretty obvious that any property acquired before the divorce is filed is 1/2 for each. Going both ways.
Unfortunately for Ed.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:53 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:but does that matter?
Because they were divorced before he received it.
If he was married when the contract was signed, I think she gets her share.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:54 am to Twenty 49
quote:
Ruling was 5-2. Verrrrry long shot of rehearing being granted.
Yup and now O is bleeding attorney fees as well. He’ll be coaching again soon.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:56 am to lsubatman1
quote:
Ed, why dont you just give me 1 mil and ill keep your ex wife happy and off your back!
Somebody will help Kelly find a fishin hole near Fourchon for way less.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:06 am to BZ504
Pics?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:20 am to moneyg
quote:
Do you believe that spouse is entitled to half of money earned after divorce because a contract is signed during marriage?
yes, b/c of the bolded portion....
it's VERY simple here in Louisiana, as far as how assets, acquired during the marriage, are divvied up... it's 50/50.... period...
they were still legally married when he signed that extension, thus those assets were, from a legal standpoint, acquired DURING the marriage and subject to an even 50/50 split
you can feel how you want, but the law doesn't give a frick about your feeling, bruh
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:22 am to Recoveringcajun
quote:
What he hasn’t blown through already will be blown through fighting this motion.
See, that’s the thing about stupid people getting a large amount of money all at once.
“$17 mill? Damn, that’s a lot. I can go crazy for a while and I’ll still have a lot left over.”
$10k here, $20k there…doesn’t seem like a lot. And then before you know it, you’re down to your last $100k.
It’s called being a certain kind of rich.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 10:29 am
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:34 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Good luck with that.
Courts can get reversed but they are not going to reverse themselves.
And there is no other court to reverse the La. Supreme Court in a case like this because a divorce case is not going to the federal system.
Courts can get reversed but they are not going to reverse themselves.
And there is no other court to reverse the La. Supreme Court in a case like this because a divorce case is not going to the federal system.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:36 am to atltiger6487
But why does the buyout magically makes it hers. Obviously the courts were okay with keeping the revenue stream apart at divorce. It’s only when he got the lump sum did she come back wanting a cut.
It’s the same exact quantity of money as if he continued working.
It’s the same exact quantity of money as if he continued working.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:39 am to chRxis
quote:
they were still legally married when he signed that extension, thus those assets were, from a legal standpoint, acquired DURING the marriage and subject to an even 50/50 split
you can feel how you want, but the law doesn't give a frick about your feeling, bruh
Then explain why this wasn’t addressed in the initial divorce proceedings.
This wasn’t additional money. Had he not been fired he would have earned the same amount. The buyout was for the remaining term of contract.
So why would the income NOT be split. Whereas the buyout is?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:44 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
The buyout was effectively a negotiated “prepayment of future earnings” to go away now.
Had LSU not fired him and he continued coaching and getting his regular paycheck, was she entitled to any of that money? I don’t know but I’m guessing no. So if she wasn’t entitled to the regular ongoing checks why would she be entitled to the prepayment of future checks?
It’s an interesting case, I kind of see both sides. But I actually lean towards the O side.
Had LSU not fired him and he continued coaching and getting his regular paycheck, was she entitled to any of that money? I don’t know but I’m guessing no. So if she wasn’t entitled to the regular ongoing checks why would she be entitled to the prepayment of future checks?
It’s an interesting case, I kind of see both sides. But I actually lean towards the O side.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 10:48 am
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:21 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I doubt his application for rehearing will be granted considering the same court just ruled against him.
He’s just exhausting all of his options to prevent final judgment.
He’s just exhausting all of his options to prevent final judgment.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:29 pm to homemadeshine
quote:
Like it or not, she's getting half. She was there the entire time, so she gets half of the pie!
What if he had remarried immediately after the divorce? The La Supreme Ct is essentially saying that only wife #1 would receive half of his earnings including while he’s married to wife #2. Think about the legal implications if that ruling stands. Ed’s contract was guaranteed and the buyout was for Ed’s future earnings, not Kelly’s.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:48 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Doesn't this belong on the gossip board?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:54 pm to Wichita Co Tiger
quote:
screwed LSU by literally hiring all his family and buddies to any position he possibly could and then laughed about “give me my check and tell me what door to go out of”…..yea how anyone could defend him is beyond me.
As a donor I am frustrated that some of my money continues to go to Ed Orgerons buy out as he did what you say.
BUT.
It’s even more frustrating that 8 million will go to Kelly Orgeron. She couldn’t even be bothered to move to Baton Rouge yet LSU athletics will pay her 8 million dollars.
You good with that?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:58 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I said at the time it was fricking terrible jurisprudence to set.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News