re: Orgeron fights back against Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that he owes ex-wife $8 million

quote:

---

Marriage with no prenup, then pretty obvious that any property acquired before the divorce is filed is 1/2 for each. Going both ways.

---

be he didn’t aquire this until he was fired

If he had worked the remainder of the contract he would have gotten 0
of this money. It only exists when he is fired.

He made a lot of money for a long time. If hes broke that’s crazy.

quote:

---

anything that you earn during the time you are married is equally split 50/50

---

But he hadn’t earned that money yet. Had he quit the job or died or been fired for cause he wouldn’t have gotten any of that buyout. Point being, he hadn’t earned the money yet. Had he continued working and collecting the regular checks monthly instead of a lump-sum prepayment, she wouldn’t have gotten any of those regular paychecks.

quote:

---

Point being, he hadn’t earned the money yet.

---

you don't have to actually have the cash in the bank for it to be considered earned or not... he signed a contract to buyout the remaining portion... that contract, in essence, was the "earning" of the money.... that money was going to be paid to him in short order.... again, had that contractual buyout occured AFTER the divorce, then Kelly has no right to the money.... but that isn't what happened...

quote:

---

but I do know what the fricking law is in LA... anything that you earn during the time you are married is equally split 50/50... there's really not much more to it than that

---

You never hear about earnings after marriage. The divorce was finalized before he left LSU.

Never heard of a contract being used to entitle a spouse to post marital earnings.

[quote]I didn't read any of that but she shouldn't get a single dime.


She deserves half baw... He needs to pay up and take his girlfriend to Destin for a hamburger.

quote:

---

you don't have to actually have the cash in the bank for it to be considered earned or not... he signed a contract to buyout the remaining portion... that contract, in essence, was the "earning" of the money.... that money was going to be paid to him in short order.... again, had that contractual buyout occured AFTER the divorce, then Kelly has no right to the money.... but that isn't what happened...

---

I don’t know why you say you don’t know when pointed out to an obvious contradiction but you still parrot obviously incorrect logic.

If what you are saying is true, then it would have already been set at the original divorce. Buyout wouldn’t have been a part. He’d already have been making payments.

Here is another flaw in your logic: if entitlement of income occurs when you sign the contract, does that mean remarrying after signing the new spouse gets nothing? Even though it is used in community property in the marriage? You can’t say both are the critical criteria: signing of a contract and when the property is obtained.

The extension happened about a month before the divorce was filed.

So if you sign a contract saying if you work at x place for 30 years you’ll get a cut of a business, your wife leaves you 6 months in, she can come back 30 years later and say I want my half?

Nah. This isn’t the first time a divorce occurs around a contract and I’ve never heard of the date of signing being what was significant. A contract isn’t community property. Income generated from that contract certainly can but the entitlement is defined by community property in the time period of the marriage.

Either he had a shitty lawyer or this is just another example of LA being more and more of a shite state. Hell maybe enough of them were LSU fans who didn’t care about precedent and just wanted to stick it to Ed for his post 2019 collapse but still was given life coasting levels of money.

I did find it interesting the 3 of the 5 justices behind this ruling were not actual justices, but rather retired judges appointed ad hoc to replace Justices Weimer, Guidry and Crain.

Wonder what was up with the recusals?

You vill lose

quote:

---

You were acting like the money was already earned but there are multiple cases where it couldn’t be given.

---

I'm not sure what is inconsistent here. The terms of the contract were signed while still married. If he had continued coaching she would get half of the salary per the terms of the contract. Any extensions or alterations that occur after, she would not be entitled to. The buyout clause was part of the extension contract. So if he was fired for cause, then they would each get 50% of $0. Or if he did get the buyout (which he did) then she gets half of that.