View Single Post
  #10  
Old 01-30-13, 10:28 AM
WhiteChocolateJr's Avatar
WhiteChocolateJr WhiteChocolateJr is offline
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,618

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark21horse View Post
Doom.....I am not speaking legally, I am speaking philosophically. The whole, Multi-Millionaire marries.....wife.......divorces wife.......wife gets half even tho all she did was marry the guy. In Vanessa's case.....baller marries wife.....they have kids......wife gets a whole boatload of money even tho she didnt work to get any of it. They cited as the reason she gets a boatload of money is because she raised the kids, but it dont take millions to raise kids. It doesnt take millions to put a roof over the kids heads, clothes on their backs, food in their mouths. If that were the case, only the wealthy would have kids. Does that make sense?
Legal answer here.

The Tx. Fam. Code agrees with your philsophy...to an extent. There is actually a presumptive cap of $7,500 net monthly income from which support is calculated. Above that amount, you have to prove to a judge whether good reason exists for an order of support to attach to those funds.

The cap is not an absolute, nor should it be. Like it or not, a pro athlete's kids have a lifestyle and needs--sometimes ridiculous sounding--that can and do exceed the amount under the cap. Because the cap is presumptive, it can be rebutted with adduced evidence that the child has needs for a nanny, au pair, travel, tutor, medical needs, bodyguard and so on. Personal experience here: Judges are people, too. You'll find quickly that there better be a DAMN good reason to request $40k/month in support, else your face will be chewed off by an irritated judge. For instance, what if the kid is a world-class horserider, and continued lessons, boarding, maintenance and other husbandry cost $12k/month? The harsh answer is: Tough. The real-world, more kid-friendly answer is found by departing from the presumptive guidelines.

It comes down to a heckuva lot more than the "roof over the kids heads, clothes on their backs, food in their mouths" that you identified. Is it fair? Maybe not in the strictest philosophical sense, but it's a complicated calculus that Vannessa Bryant and countless others in her position make.
__________________
Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature.
"Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird
Reply With Quote