Sportscaster Nantz to pay ex-wife $916K a year – FOX Sports on MSN Apparently I went into the wrong business. As for Nantz being the nations most prominent sportscaster. Oh really?

CBS sportscaster Jim Nantz must pay $916,000 yearly in alimony and child support to his ex-wife and give up their Connecticut home under terms of a newly issued divorce decree.
The ruling, made Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court, dissolves the 26-year marriage of Nantz and Ann-Lorraine “Lorrie” Carlsen Nantz. It comes after both testified about the breakdown of their marriage; Judge Howard Owens concluded neither was at fault.Jim Nantz. Michael Conroy, File / Associated PressNantz, described by Owens as “our nation’s most prominent sportscaster,” filed for divorce last year from his wife after years of marriage counseling, according to the decree.Although Nantz, 50, acknowledged he started dating a 29-year-old woman before the divorce was final, the judge concluded the marriage deteriorated years earlier and “this remote event in no way contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.”




  1. That’s a good paying form of employment
    Where can I stand in line to get such employment and pay

  2. mr. show says:

    John,

    I think you and Curry should have a sports show with Keith Olberman! Now that would be worth watching.

  3. Faxon says:

    Divorce and alimony laws in this country are outrageous. Every marriage should have a contract specifying that each partner leaves the marriage and nobody owes the other anything.

  4. bobbo, words have a context says:

    Whats more whack-a-mole inappropriate than an ex spouse getting a million a year in alimony? Probably the earning spouse earning 3-4 million per year!

    It is “rare” in a relationship that one person does not create most of the problems. Not always, just the usual situation. No fault divorce is a “legal fiction” to make the work of judges jobs easier.

    Whats “really” needed is stricter licensing rules to begin with==allow some education and a cooling off period.

    Always interesting to see the interplay between ignorance/desire and experience/sound social policy.

    Two entirely different worlds.

  5. Improbus says:

    Why is this in the blog? Seriously. Why is this news?

  6. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    Nantz gets to keep the majority of his salary and houses. The article makes him seem satisfied with that so what is there to argue about?

    Damn, should I know this guy? What the heck makes him worth so much money?

  7. Steve says:

    I lost my “remote” control.

  8. fulanoche says:

    I never even heard of this guy!!!!

  9. oil of dog says:

    YAWN…………..

  10. RTaylor says:

    Why more divorce lawyers aren’t murdered I’ll never understand. I have a friend that refused to retire because he’ll have to share his pension with his ex-wife of 25 years. She’s remarried and waiting for the payoff. He says he’ll either out live her or die on the job.

  11. Carcarius says:

    No doubt. That’s a ridiculous amount of money for someone to make for performing a function of such little value. Wtf?

  12. jescott418 says:

    I am all for supporting the children. But this is rediculous. I can understand why woman marry rich men. they can’t lose.I think If I was wealthy I would never marry.

  13. Bob says:

    Prenuptial contracts should be manditory for all those earning over a certain dollar figure annually. Let’s face it- this kind of thing is getting totally out of hand.

  14. Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection says:

    I’ll bet she wasn’t triple input and swelled up like a tick.

  15. Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection says:

    Also, she got $70k for a country club of her choice. I’d join a club and beat her with it.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5793 access attempts in the last 7 days.