"Lutey, you have some 'splainin to do".
Apparently, Lute transferred "his" Nike money out of the joint account after a the divorce court entered a standard preliminary injunction prohibiting such transfers, and the judge in the divorce proceedings has requested his appearance on May 7. I'm guessing this is a "show cause" hearing, in which Lute must demonstrate why the judge shouldn't hold him in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction.
The transfer occurred the same day Lute asked UA for the leave of absence.
Sounds to me like Lute's medical issues might be psychological. Grabbing money out of a joint account when you make millions ($1.5 million per year including Nike etc) and your spouse makes much more, smacks of desperation.
This news comes at a bad time for Lute, in the height of a recruiting period. Negative recruiting will rise to new heights. I guess his wife's attorney isn't a big UA booster.
Dunno whether the Nike money is his separate property or whether it is community property. Will depend on how the two of them have decided to characterize it.
Even so, the court order required him (and probably her) to maintain the status quo concerning money. He didn't do it and he will be paying a fine (probably not very big) and will have to move the money back.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of pre-nup agreement concerning how the income of each was to be characterized. Arizona is a community property state where income not subject to such an agreement is community property. She lives/lived in Illinois before and during most of the marriage. Illinois is not a community property state. For that reason alone I think a pre-nup covering earnings is in place.
I doubt that money will be much of an issue in this divorce, so this issue will be going away soon.
Sing along chill'un:
These chill'un done got their own.Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child who's got his own
Who's got his own
This article says a prenuptial agreement was signed two days after the marriage, whatever that means.
Meanwhile, the coach is challenging the validity of a prenuptial agreement.
Court records say it was signed on an airplane on the way to their honeymoon in Mexico, two days after the couple were married in April 2003.
What a shame to see such a shadow over the program. Budinger is likely going to get an agent now, why stay and play for such a stupid man?
Lute has got himself a schmuck divorce lawyer who is going for the gold. Lute deserves ALL of the bad publicity he gets for this AND all of the negative recruiting that it engenders. How is the privilege of being married to him for a couple of years worth millions of dollars? Nice ego Lute.
It is his prerogative to be a gold-digger and sell his reputation for millions of dollars. Unfortunately, Lute will play this as if he is the victim and expect sympathy. To hell with him. He is now second lowest on my list of hated coaches (ahead of only Calhoun).
I imagine the pre-nup must be signed before the nup, or it isn't pre. Once community property attaches, can a post-nup govern marital assets?
A characterization agreement can be reached either before or after the marriage. Even individual inheritances during a marriage are separate property (not that it matters here).
If the pre-/post-nup agreement cites the Nike earnings as separate, it wouldn't even matter if they were put into a joint account, so long as they can be identified (and they can be). They would be Lute's separate property.
Lute's got a rough road to ride if he expects to get half of her assets. It won't happen.
Folks, this will be an easy call for the judge. It's cut and dried, no matter what Lute wants his lawyer to seek.
Edit: I am answering the first quoted section with the 'no.' The second question is covered as well.
Last edited by Jim3k; 04-22-2008 at 06:25 PM. Reason: add the edit
If Lute is contesting the pre/post nup, he would have no standing to claim the Nike money was his separate asset would he? His own actions conflict with his legal claim. Putz.
Now a technical question. Once the marriage is consummated, doesn't the law disfavor characterization agreements that are one-sided? Continued marriage should not be valid consideration, since continued marriage is an obligation of the marriage itself. Using poor Lute as an example, why would he bargain away his right to half of her considerable yearly income? Wouldn't a court look at the sufficiency of the consideration for such a bargain if the agreement is later challenged?
Given her wealth, I suspect that this agreement is not one-sided. Her income is probably characterized as separate, too. If not, some lawyer better check his errors and omissions policy.
As if all this off-court circus with Lute were not enough, throw in the most spectacular, bally-hooed newcomer in the country for next year, Brandon Jennings. He's got incredible passing and ball-handling skills, but demands the ball and the spotlight.
Think Brandon and Lute won't bang heads (distinctively coiffed heads, at that) from time to time next year?
The article was imprecise. Pre-nups are similar, though. They are marriage agreements which control the distribution of property on divorce, no matter what the state law says absent such an agreement. They, too, are binding. Community property characterization agreements, OTOH, can be entered into or modified after the marriage.
Community property means one spouse cannot sell even part of the other spouse's half share without consent. It also means that on a spouse's death, the survivor gets half the community, no matter what the decedent's will might say. The decedent can only distribute his/her separate property as s/he wishes -- by will or pre-death gift. On that spouse's death, separate property can be distributed by will or trust; if he's intestate, the state does provide a scheme for its distribution, the same as in a non-community property state.
And, of course, titled property (real estate, car, common stock, bank account, and anything you choose to put a title on) is held per the terms of the title. Even so, they only create presumptions which can be rebutted.
One ******* away from a triple double!