Quote:
Originally Posted by dak11  Today should be a big day in the Strahan saga. Seems he has a court hearing today that will determine how much, if any, more money he might owe his ex-wife. Could be up to another 6.5 mil on top of the 15 mil she already got awarded. Giants Blog
On Tuesday, a New Jersey state appeals court is expected to rule whether Strahan has to pay a $15.3 million award to his ex-wife, Jean Strahan. Strahan has already paid half the award and says Jean is not entitled to $6.5 million from a pre-nuptial agreement. The ruling on that case could be a factor in determining if Strahan is willing to take the Giants money in exchange for a comeback. |
And here is a text on the Court's decision for all who are interested.
__________________________________________________ ______________
Argued April 9, 2008 – Decided
Before Judges Parker, R. B. Coleman and
Lyons.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Essex County, Docket No. FM-07-1858-05.
Angelo Genova argued the cause for appellant
(Genova, Burns & Vernoia, Pashman Stein,
P.C., and Walder, Hayden and Brogan,
attorneys; Michael S. Stein and Sean Mack,
on the brief).
Ellen C. Marshall argued the cause for
respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Michael Strahan appeals from an amended judgment
of divorce entered on January 12, 2007 and an order entered on
March 22, 2007 denying his motion for reconsideration.
August 26, 2008
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
August 26, 2008
APPELLATE DIVISION
2 A-3747-06T4
Plaintiff is a football player who has been under contract
with the New York Giants since 1993. He began dating defendant
in October 1994. At the time they met, defendant was employed
as a model and manager for a cosmetics company, earning about
$70,000 per year. In 1995, the parties moved in together and
defendant quit her job, purportedly at plaintiff's request.
When plaintiff extended a marriage proposal, defendant agreed to
sign a pre-nuptial agreement (agreement) before they married on
July 18, 1999. Twin girls were born of the marriage on October
28, 2004.
The complaint for divorce was filed on March 14, 2005. The
parties were able to agree on joint legal custody of the
children with defendant having primary residential custody. The
matter was tried over eleven days in June and July 2006. A dual
judgment of divorce was entered on July 20, 2006 dissolving the
marriage. An amended judgment was entered on January 12, 2007
addressing the validity of the agreement, equitable
distribution, child support, disability insurance for plaintiff
and counsel fees.
In this appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) he performed his
obligations under the agreement and the equitable distribution
of the parties' joint assets exceeded the amount to which
defendant was entitled under the agreement; (2) the trial court
3 A-3747-06T4
erred in its calculation of child support and failed to make the
necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law in awarding
child support; (3) the trial court erred in requiring plaintiff
to pay ninety-one percent of the total child support; (4) the
trial court erred in ordering plaintiff to obtain a $7.5 million
disability insurance policy; and (5) the trial court erred in
awarding $13,777.50 in counsel and accountant fees to defendant.
During the pendency of this appeal, the parties reached an
agreement and entered a partial stipulation dismissing the
equitable distribution issues, leaving only child support, the
disability insurance and counsel fees to be addressed by this
court. On July 11, 2008 an order was entered memorializing the
stipulation and allowing the parties to distribute the monies
held in the court's trust fund escrow account. Accordingly, we
will address only the remaining issues of (a) child support; (b)
the disability insurance policy; and (c) counsel fees.
A. Child Support
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in setting
the amount of supplemental child support and in ordering him to
pay 91% of the amount.
Both parents have a shared obligation to support their
children. Koelble v. Koelble, 261 N.J. Super. 190, 194 (App.
Div. 1992). "[W]here the parties have the financial wherewithal
4 A-3747-06T4
to provide for their children, the children are entitled to the
benefit of financial advantages available to them." Isaacson v.
Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 579 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
174 N.J. 364 (2002). "Children are entitled to not only bare
necessities, but a supporting parent has the obligation to share
with his children the benefit of his financial achievement."
Id. at 580.
In setting child support, the court shall consider the
factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a):
(1) Needs of the child;
(2) Standard of living and economic
circumstances of each parent;
(3) All sources of income and assets of
each parent;
(4) Earning ability of each parent,
including educational background, training,
employment skills, work experience,
custodial responsibility for children
including the cost of providing child care
and the length of time and cost of each
parent to obtain training or experience for
appropriate employment;
(5) Need and capacity of the child for
education, including higher education;
(6) Age and health of the child and each
parent;
(7) Income, assets and earning ability of
the child;
(8) Responsibility of the parents for the
court-ordered support of others;
5 A-3747-06T4
(9) Reasonable debts and liabilities of
each child and parent; and
(10) Any other factors the court may deem
relevant.
"If the combined net income of the parents is more than
$187,200 per year, the court shall apply the guidelines up to
$187,200 and supplement the guidelines-based award with a
discretionary amount based on the remaining family income (i.e.,
income in excess of $187,200) and the factors specified in
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23." Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules,
Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A at 2302 (2007). "The key to both the
[g]uidelines and the statutory factors is flexibility and the
best interest of children." Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583,
594 (1995).
In the context of high-income parents whose ability to pay
is not an issue, "the dominant guideline for consideration is
the reasonable needs of the children, which must be addressed in
the context of the standard of living of the parties. The needs
of the children must be the centerpiece of any relevant
analysis." Isaacson, supra, 348 N.J. Super. at 581 (emphasis
added). The consideration of needs must include the age and
health of the children -- with the understanding that infants'
needs are less than those of teenagers -- as well as any assets
or income of the children. Ibid.
6 A-3747-06T4
Determining a child's "needs" in high-income earning
families presents "unique problems." Id. at 582.
First, a balance must be struck between
reasonable needs, which reflect lifestyle
opportunities, while at the same time
precluding an inappropriate windfall to the
child or even in some cases infringing on
the legitimate right of either parent to
determine the appropriate lifestyle of a
child. This latter consideration involves a
careful balancing of interests reflecting
that a child's entitlement to share in a
parent's good fortune does not deprive
either parent of the right to participate in
the development of an appropriate value
system for a child. This is a critical
tension that may develop between competing
parents. Ultimately, the needs of a child
in such circumstances also calls to the fore
the best interests of a child.
[Ibid. (citation omitted).]
"