- 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 7/14/25 at 11:33 pm to Tiger1988
Posted on 7/14/25 at 11:33 pm to Tiger1988
quote:
The only way she wouldn’t be entitled to that specific clause is if the contract was voided and as he continued employment (his next contract).
Until last month, she would not have been entitled to that specific clause in any situation where the money became due and payable after the termination of the community. Just like she was not entitled to any of the paychecks he received every month (or week, or however they pay them) -- under the terms of that same contract -- after the termination of the community. Some people here can't seem to grasp that the community doesn't terminate when the judgment of divorce is final; it dates back to the filing of the petition, which (apparently) was February 26, 2020. So any payments arising after that date were not community property, nor was the liquidated damages paid under the buyout . . . until the Supreme Court invented this brand new concept under Louisiana law.
If it isn't fixed on rehearing, I'm pretty confident it will be legislatively overruled, which will no doubt have its own unintended consequences as, yet again, bad cases yield bad decisions which lead to bad laws.
0
Posted on 7/14/25 at 11:33 pm to Tshirts
The reasoning of they were married when he signed it opens the door to her getting half of the entire contract after they divorced if he would have not been fired. You think she should have gotten half of that contract regardless?
Posted on 7/14/25 at 11:42 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
"Unless reversed, the decision will generate absurd and unjust consequences with wide-ranging implications far beyond this case," wrote Ed Orgeron's attorneys, led by Randy Smith in New Orleans.
Hyperbole much? The thing about this case is that the facts are extremely rare. A lot of it has to do with when he signed the memorandum of understanding with the university, knowing that he was working on a buyout. It just happened to coincide with his divorce. And, it just happened to involve the states most highly paid “employee.“ With the exception of another LSU coach or major CEO, something like this just is just not going to happen for a very, very long time.
Normal, everyday people just don’t have buyouts like this. Louisiana is an "at will" firing State and most people are just let go with maybe a little severance.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 2:22 am to MMauler
quote:
The thing about this case is that the facts are extremely rare.
The problem is that the ruling creates the notion that speculative and conditional terms in a contract can be perfected as community property at the time of signing. Such terms are quite common (retirement options, agreements to sell, lease options, etc.) And the actual implication of the opinion is that Orgeron actually owed her the $8 million value of the "golden parachute" the moment the term sheet was signed, which means he would have had to pay her the $8 million even if he had not been fired, or if he had been fired and LSU had refused to pay it. Similarly, if a husband had signed an employment contract with a retirement package, then subsequently divorced, he would owe his now ex-wife half of that retirement package even if he never retired. Of course, this would be absurd, which is why the opinion is nonsensical.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 2:53 am to King Joey
quote:
Of course, this would be absurd, which is why the opinion is nonsensical.
It speaks volumes that Ed’s attorney asked to have the effective date of the contract changed to April 23, 2020, when the long form agreement was finalized. That was after their community property had ceased. He knew then this could/would be an issue.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 6:27 am to Volvagia
I am a CPA, not a lawyer. Intriguing case with this being the most logical take on it.
On the one hand - in the business world you can ascribe value to intellectual property like trademarks, recipes, customer lists / contracts, etc.
However, in accounting the income is not “earned” until the transaction (firing) has occurred which at the time of the divorce had not happened yet.
You cannot grant interests in earnings from future events. Let’s say Bill Gates was only married for 5 years then gets divorced. He then builds Microsoft. Does the ex-wife get to say 20 years later “he thought up the idea while I was his wife so give me half!”
A buyout clause is a pre-arranged settlement to substitute for *future* earnings, not historical. Kelly could have legally separated but not granted Ed a divorce unless the divorce agreement stipulated she’d get a cut of any possible future buyout. The LA courts are bailing her original lawyers out.
On the one hand - in the business world you can ascribe value to intellectual property like trademarks, recipes, customer lists / contracts, etc.
However, in accounting the income is not “earned” until the transaction (firing) has occurred which at the time of the divorce had not happened yet.
You cannot grant interests in earnings from future events. Let’s say Bill Gates was only married for 5 years then gets divorced. He then builds Microsoft. Does the ex-wife get to say 20 years later “he thought up the idea while I was his wife so give me half!”
A buyout clause is a pre-arranged settlement to substitute for *future* earnings, not historical. Kelly could have legally separated but not granted Ed a divorce unless the divorce agreement stipulated she’d get a cut of any possible future buyout. The LA courts are bailing her original lawyers out.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 6:32 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Also, does anyone else remember that as part of the buyout Ed remained on the LSU payroll? It was thought to be part of some sort of non-compete clause as long as Ed made, whatever, 2-3 appearances at banquets or whatever. Decent odds Ed’s attorneys knew the risks here and tried to do an end-around by keeping Ed “employed” by LSU.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 8:40 am to Tiger1988
quote:
This is as much about contract law as it is community property from a divorce. The terms of the contract stated that upon certain conditions LSU would pay him. If he completely violated some terms that didn’t warrant a buy out like NCAA issues or Title IX, then he wouldn’t get any buy out. That contract was executed before he was divorced and in place when he was fired for non-performance therefore he was entitled to agreed upon provisions. The only way she wouldn’t be entitled to that specific clause is if the contract was voided and as he continued employment (his next contract). At least that’s how I read this.
I do not agree with paying her another penny to be abundantly clear.
this... 10000000% this.... at this point, she has gotten her share per the law, so now any money he makes is his and his alone, provided he doesn't get married without a prenup again
Posted on 7/15/25 at 9:33 am to Volvagia
quote:
Then explain why this wasn’t addressed in the initial divorce proceedings.
Shut up tard.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 9:39 am to West Bank Dan
quote:
most logical take on it.
you can throw that right out the window in family court, the one in possession of the vagina always has the upper hand and gets the benefit of doubt
Posted on 7/15/25 at 7:51 pm to chRxis
quote:
The terms of the contract stated that upon certain conditions LSU would pay him.
The terms also said they would pay him a salary under certain conditions. And she wasn't entitled to any of that, either, once the community terminated. So, no, it's not about the contract.
quote:
The only way she wouldn’t be entitled to that specific clause is if the contract was voided and as he continued employment (his next contract).
No, the usual way she wouldn't be entitled to that specific clause is because it was (like his salary under the same contract) earned after the termination of the community. A contract that gives you the opportunity to earn money (like, say, by working or getting fired or the completion of any other conditional agreement) is not the same as a contract that contains a perfected obligation (like, say, we will pay you this money period, no matter what). If the term had included a binding obligation for LSU to pay him $17 million dollars that was enforceable the day the community terminated, the would likely have been entitled to that community asset. But since neither of them had any rights to that $17 million dollars that day, there was no asset, much less a community one.
Posted on 7/15/25 at 10:02 pm to Wayne Campbell
quote:
If the contract was fully guaranteed, then when was the money actually “earned.” I think an argument could be made that it was essentially earned when the contract was signed regardless of the payout structure.
If he died in a car wreck would LSU have paid out the remaining contract?
Or was the contract a salary agreement per year for x amount of years?
This post was edited on 7/15/25 at 10:03 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News