Results 1 to 15 of 15

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City

    Lute went for the Loot

    "Lutey, you have some 'splainin to do".

    http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/235461.php

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    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.
    Yeah, what was the point? It's not like either of them need money.

    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:

    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
    These chill'un done got their own.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    I doubt that money will be much of an issue in this divorce, so this issue will be going away soon.
    I think that money is almost always an issue in a divorce, especially when there is a lot of it.

  4. #4
    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?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    BTW, I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of pre-nup agreement concerning how the income of each was to be characterized.
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City

    Lootylicious

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    Yeah, what was the point? It's not like either of them need money. ...

    ... 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. ...

    I doubt that money will be much of an issue in this divorce, so this issue will be going away soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleboy View Post
    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
    Oh this is rich, and it isn't going away any time soon unless Mrs. Olson slaps down some serious cash to settle.

    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?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    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?
    Actually, no. Property brought to the community prior to marriage is separate property unless it is specifically recharacterized by agreement or behavior. Only earnings occurring during the marriage are community property. Earnings after the collapse of the community are separate as well, even where a divorce has not been sought.

    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    A characterization agreement can be reached either before or after the marriage.
    So, was the consideration for the post-nup the honeymoon trip to Mexico or the services rendered in Mexico?

    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    So, was the consideration for the post-nup the honeymoon trip to Mexico or the services rendered in Mexico?
    I'm quite certain he was considerate during that time frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    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.
    He may have lost the presumption that it was separate, but the wording of the pre/post nup probably covers it and if it does, it will govern.

    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    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?
    One-sided is as one-sided does. If the agreement says that Lute's earnings are to be considered as his separate property, that is sufficient. Issues of contract consideration are never looked at, unless the unfairness is apparent on the face of the agreement. Besides, I think it can be legitimately argued that the actual signing was only a ministerial act, given that the agreement had been reached prior to the marriage. (If you had an unexecuted pre-nup, then the argument wouldn't fly because there would be no proof of the agreement; since this one was executed, the effective date probably doesn't matter.)

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    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?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    A characterization agreement can be reached either before or after the marriage.
    Is a prenuptial agreement a category of characterization agreements?

    Was the article wrong in referring to it as a prenuptial?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleboy View Post
    Is a prenuptial agreement a category of characterization agreements?

    Was the article wrong in referring to it as a prenuptial?
    The way I have used the term 'characterization agreement' here is pretty much exclusive to community property states. Husband and wife agree to characterize their holding(s) in a manner different from the presumption of community property.

    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.

  13. #13
    Thanks.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    The way I have used the term 'characterization agreement' here is pretty much exclusive to community property states. Husband and wife agree to characterize their holding(s) in a manner different from the presumption of community property.

    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.
    Hey Jim - you know a lot about this. Are you a domestic attorney? My wife is a domestic paralegal (and might as well be an attorney for all she knows!) The one thing I can comment on about this is how stupid it was for Lute to piss the judge off. Even if the nominal penalty isn't big, that is probably the WORST thing you can do in a case; especially domestic with all the discretion involved...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammrog View Post
    Hey Jim - you know a lot about this. Are you a domestic attorney? My wife is a domestic paralegal (and might as well be an attorney for all she knows!) The one thing I can comment on about this is how stupid it was for Lute to piss the judge off. Even if the nominal penalty isn't big, that is probably the WORST thing you can do in a case; especially domestic with all the discretion involved...
    Nah. I'm just a member of the bar of three western states, including Arizona, all of which are community property states. I had to learn it three times.

Similar Threads

  1. Lute Still Standing
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-22-2008, 10:06 AM
  2. More Lute bashing
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 04:44 PM
  3. Lute Olson?
    By dukie8 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 02:29 PM
  4. Why would Lute care
    By rthomas in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 11:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •