re: LA Supreme Court shut down Coach O's request for rehearing.

quote:

---

He signed the new contract before he filed for divorce.

---

the dissent argues that she wouldn't have gotten any of the new contract had he not been fired.

I can see why people would take issue with this ruling but i do find it funny that the dissent compares it to a Sheriff getting divorced after an election

much like the wife of an elected official, there is a lot of politics and glad handing that comes with being the wife of a major head football coach. Dinners, fund raisers, public appearance, ect.

Just reading his comparison is like he is trying to warn his peers in public office to not write a check their arse doesn't want to cash

quote:

---

he majority’s reasoning –that“[b]ecause th[e] security blanket [liquidated damages clause] was provided for in the Employment Agreement, effective during the community, it was community property”–could lead to absurd consequences. Take, for example, the situation where the spouse of a candidate for sheriffactively and heavily participates in the campaign and the candidateis elected for a four-year term. That sheriffthen has a guaranteed salary for the ensuing fouryears. If the parties divorce shortly after the election, under the majority’s reasoning, the sheriff’sspouse would have a claim to the sheriff’ssalary for the remainder of his term. This is clearly contrary to our community property scheme.Theissue in this case is uncomplicated. All of the sums Mr. Orgeron received post-community –whether in the form of salary, supplemental salary, incentive compensation or liquidated damages (representing a portion of Mr. Orgeron’s remaining salary under theEmployment Agreement) were received by Mr. Orgeron for work he performed after the termination of the community property regime. It is all his separate property. I would therefore affirm the lower courts’ decisions.

---