Well, it’s been almost a year and a half since Jim Nantz decided to divorce his wife, but it looks like the two have reached a settlement.
Here is what being married to a famous sportscaster for 26 years will get you these days:
- Nearly $1 million a year in perpetuity
- A Westport, Conn mansion
- A nearby condo
That $1M/year alimony lasts until Nantz dies, or the ex remarries which of course, she will now have pretty strong incentive to avoid. The good news for Nantz is that the issue is settled and he can move on with his life, which he is obviously eager to do if he is willing to accept such payments.
I guess it's all relative... One could believe Nantz got a good deal, since the missus was originally requesting $1.5M/year in child support plus alimony, but I'm sure that was an inflated asking price, typical of the first round of a negotiation.
What confounds me is how the judge found neither party at fault, yet one party was rewarded while the other was punished. I’m sure some people will cite Nantz extramarital relationship with the now-31 year old woman as justification for the financial penalty laid down by the court. But I maintain that this is/was a personal relationship between two adults, and should not involve the courts. It didn’t work out. Regardless of the reason, or who’s at fault (again, the judge found no fault by the way), why should there be any continuing obligation after the relationship has been dissolved?
