Apparently 2007 isn't going to be a better year than 2006 for Giants defensive end Michael Strahan. At least it appears that way so far. It's been reported that Jean, Michael's ex-wife, has taken him to the cleaners in court.
2006 began with an ugly divorce, where Michael and ex-wife Jean exchanged numerous jabs at each other. Included were allegations of infidelity and abuse. Jean even went as far as accusing Michael of leading an "alternative lifestyle". The year continued to be rough on Michael on the football field, after he got off the a very slow start. So slow, in fact, that Strahan only had 1 sack in his first 5 games and was being questioned by some regarding his drive. His year of turmoil continued as he injured his foot against the Houston Texans on November 5. His season was effectively over, as Strahan would play in only one more game, during which he re-injured the foot.
Now, 2007 is beginning on a similar note that 2006 ended, with the news that Jean Strahan was awarded $15 million of Michael's fortune. Ouch! I guess that's what he gets for writing up a prenuptial agreement that contains language regarding a specific percentage of the estate, as seems to be the case. We all take it on the chin from time to time, but Michael has to be reeling after this enormous financial setback. After his injury, there was talk of Michael considering retirement. He's rebuffed such speculation, but is now all but certain to return to the football field, if not for anything but a paycheck.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1-13-2007 @ 4:22PM
Adan said...
Strahan is really getting hit hard, i don't think it is fair. Why should an ex-wife should be able to take money that their husband has made. This is a problem with society. Just like i don't think an ex-wife should be able to get half of thier husbands pension. Granted i believe this is only try when kids are not involved, but even then, it is still unfair.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 4:25PM
Steve Sormani said...
Adam,
Yeah, I think Paul McCartney may agree with you. Society is out of control in many ways, but the legal systewm is the clear winner in the race of craziness!
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 5:13PM
quan said...
oh yeah, i remember, Strahan's wife had 20 and a half sacks over the past few years.....give me a break. If we're to be fair, it was so unintelligent to draw up such a weak prenup. But on the other hand, his ex-wife says she just wanted what she had coming. I don't know his wife's background, but I think it is a safe bet to say she would have never known what a million dollars was before she met him. No woman or man needs tens of thousands of dollars for a kid, or even two kids. Ultimately, Mrs Strahan gets to retire early, if she was even working in the first place, while poor Mike has to keep laying his life on the line Sunday after Sunday. In my opinion, if i have a prenup it'll read pretty simple for my spouse; "When this marriage is over you leave with what you came with"
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 5:13PM
TJ said...
Lets see sign a prenump that he dictates the amount she will receive- Resign for bigger bucks because the old contract is junk. hey it goes both ways. You sign it HONOR the contract to the extent of the contact. When it expires try for a better deal-if you earned it there is no issue right.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 6:38PM
rocco said...
I think that the courts did it right. They upheld a legal binding contract that both parties entered into.
However, if I were Mike, I would be looking into the law firm that drew up the prenup. That's where the problem lies, not with the courts. By the way Mike, if you have to give her 20% per year of wages that you earned, she should have to pay you rent for staying in your house all these years. About a mil. a year should be about right.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 6:43PM
PHIL said...
TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO,S BEEN THROUGH THIS PRISON TERM THAT IS ALMOST OVER,WITH CHILD SUPPORT,AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS. THE LAW IS SO UNFAIR TOWARDS THE EX-HUSBAND TO BE.THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO CHANGE THESE EGOTISTICAL ATTORNEYS,AND JUDGES,TO MAKE THE MARITAL ASSETS,AND OBLIGATIONS FAIR TOWARDS THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT. BUT MR STRAHAN WAS NOT THE NICEST GENTLEMEN IN THIS CASE WITH HIS ACTIONS OF INFIDILITY. THIS PROBABLY MADE THE JUDGEMENT EVEN HARDER ON HIM.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 8:08PM
Paul said...
I hope Mr. Strahan sues his lawyers for malpractice. A pre-nuptial agreement that gives his wife 50 % of assets PLUS 20% OF HIS ANNUAL EARNINGS !!!!!!! Are you kidding me? What a rip.. and I guess Michael has to take some of the blame for #1. Hiring the sheister lawyers and 2. Signing the agreement that in effect gives his wife MORE than she would have received WITHOUT a PRE-NUP!!!!
Reply
1-15-2007 @ 10:10PM
Casey McLauchlin said...
Because Strahan's attorney drew up the prenup agreement, he was legally estopped from claiming it wasn't fair. He dictated the terms, so, now, he's bound by them. None of these athletes deserve all the huge salaries they pull down. It's the same as all those fatcat CEOs of big businesses. None of them are worth multi-millions; it's just another sign that our society and its values is screwed up. These guys start to believe their own press and, if they had any morals and values to begin with, they lose them along the way. I imagine Jean Strahan was humiliated, abused, and embarrassed in more ways than we'll ever know. Although I think she deserves the money awarded by the court, I doubt if she'll ever see it all. He'll find a way to cry poor-mouth or shelter a good portion of it from her. That's what these guys do. Look at O.J.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:04PM
78uiophhhjj said...
i thank that is not right at all that is a scam! lol just joking or am i! but that is a scam and i am quite seriuos and that is a lot of money i would just retire and let her have no money maybe have about 2million dollars but that is alot of money to be dealing with i might not have the story right but i am just going bye what someone told me and what they are typing i am telling them to type well bye.!
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:09PM
78uiophhhjj said...
well u r being realy mean not getting me any diomands meany!!
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:18PM
78uiophhhjj said...
djklerukweklrgowiemgwoi4tjgklwr2guw4klgjwgtjwme4gow[4itjgw45ogiwt4gq3n4gt5o24tg24htg24tlgh24g0oh
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:37PM
lola said...
i will write something sensible because my dad told me too u see blog entry 9 i wrote that that was so sensinble can u tell and i aam really happy that i wrote that because i am so bored can u tell well i am and that blog number 9 came from the heart i promise ok well that is a lie but this has nothing to do what you people are talking about so peace.have a wonderful year and i hope these blogs stay for a very long time so i can read it everydayy well bye
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:43PM
lola said...
do u see 9 and 10 i wrote those two this is a jpoke so do not take it personally ok ok
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:48PM
lola said...
i no this is bad so i am coping and pasting wat other people wrote execpt me so yea bye and read this
1. Strahan is really getting hit hard, i don't think it is fair. Why should an ex-wife should be able to take money that their husband has made. This is a problem with society. Just like i don't think an ex-wife should be able to get half of thier husbands pension. Granted i believe this is only try when kids are not involved, but even then, it is still unfair.
Posted at 4:22PM on Jan 13th 2007 by Adan
2. Adam,
Yeah, I think Paul McCartney may agree with you. Society is out of control in many ways, but the legal systewm is the clear winner in the race of craziness!
Posted at 4:25PM on Jan 13th 2007 by Steve Sormani
3. Lets see sign a prenump that he dictates the amount she will receive- Resign for bigger bucks because the old contract is junk. hey it goes both ways. You sign it HONOR the contract to the extent of the contact. When it expires try for a better deal-if you earned it there is no issue right.
Posted at 5:13PM on Jan 13th 2007 by TJ
4. oh yeah, i remember, Strahan's wife had 20 and a half sacks over the past few years.....give me a break. If we're to be fair, it was so unintelligent to draw up such a weak prenup. But on the other hand, his ex-wife says she just wanted what she had coming. I don't know his wife's background, but I think it is a safe bet to say she would have never known what a million dollars was before she met him. No woman or man needs tens of thousands of dollars for a kid, or even two kids. Ultimately, Mrs Strahan gets to retire early, if she was even working in the first place, while poor Mike has to keep laying his life on the line Sunday after Sunday. In my opinion, if i have a prenup it'll read pretty simple for my spouse; "When this marriage is over you leave with what you came with"
Posted at 5:13PM on Jan 13th 2007 by quan
5. I think that the courts did it right. They upheld a legal binding contract that both parties entered into.
However, if I were Mike, I would be looking into the law firm that drew up the prenup. That's where the problem lies, not with the courts. By the way Mike, if you have to give her 20% per year of wages that you earned, she should have to pay you rent for staying in your house all these years. About a mil. a year should be about right.
Posted at 6:38PM on Jan 13th 2007 by rocco
6. TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO,S BEEN THROUGH THIS PRISON TERM THAT IS ALMOST OVER,WITH CHILD SUPPORT,AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS. THE LAW IS SO UNFAIR TOWARDS THE EX-HUSBAND TO BE.THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO CHANGE THESE EGOTISTICAL ATTORNEYS,AND JUDGES,TO MAKE THE MARITAL ASSETS,AND OBLIGATIONS FAIR TOWARDS THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT. BUT MR STRAHAN WAS NOT THE NICEST GENTLEMEN IN THIS CASE WITH HIS ACTIONS OF INFIDILITY. THIS PROBABLY MADE THE JUDGEMENT EVEN HARDER ON HIM.
Posted at 6:43PM on Jan 13th 2007 by PHIL
7. I hope Mr. Strahan sues his lawyers for malpractice. A pre-nuptial agreement that gives his wife 50 % of assets PLUS 20% OF HIS ANNUAL EARNINGS !!!!!!! Are you kidding me? What a rip.. and I guess Michael has to take some of the blame for #1. Hiring the sheister lawyers and 2. Signing the agreement that in effect gives his wife MORE than she would have received WITHOUT a PRE-NUP!!!!
Posted at 8:08PM on Jan 13th 2007 by Paul
8. Because Strahan's attorney drew up the prenup agreement, he was legally estopped from claiming it wasn't fair. He dictated the terms, so, now, he's bound by them. None of these athletes deserve all the huge salaries they pull down. It's the same as all those fatcat CEOs of big businesses. None of them are worth multi-millions; it's just another sign that our society and its values is screwed up. These guys start to believe their own press and, if they had any morals and values to begin with, they lose them along the way. I imagine Jean Strahan was humiliated, abused, and embarrassed in more ways than we'll ever know. Although I think she deserves the money awarded by the court, I doubt if she'll ever see it all. He'll find a way to cry poor-mouth or shelter a good portion of it from her. That's what these guys do. Look at O.J.
told u it was going to be good
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 12:01AM
vinny said...
New Law !
The wife should get 1% of his earning per year for every year she is married !
In her case 6% thats what she is worth.
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 2:37AM
Sledge said...
It sounds to me that Michael should be looking to sack his attorney for not giving him better advice. They are the ones that wrote the prenup that screwed him. This thing sounds so out of control, that it makes one wonder if his attorney had a vested interest in her well being.
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 6:54AM
Jerry said...
Why would anybody be suprised by the judges decision, it's my understanding, that the Strahans had a prenuptial agreement.
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 7:34AM
az soforenko said...
He should have checked with Jeff Gordon before he signed the prenup. Jeff got screwed as well......
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 8:04AM
wrangler1314 said...
As far as I am concerned Football playing has absolutely no societal value anyway. It will have no effect on anybody's life if they never played another game except the people making millions of dollars doing it or sponsoring it. The only purpose it may serve is the crime rate is probably down during game time.
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 8:13AM
Matthew J. Hofgesang said...
Just another example of an athlete crying when held to what he legally agreed to. If the Giants said you missed 4 games, so we are not paying 25% of your salary, he would be up in arms, but when his his wife says "you agrred to this so do it" he feels like he was robbed. Boo Hoo Mike, now you can use the excuse you don't have the money for dental work!!
Reply