Nancy Lanza's alimony

formatting link

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam?s father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in

2009. She didn?t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong with that picture?

i
Reply to
Ignoramus31296
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

formatting link

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him agree to such enormous alimony?

i
Reply to
Ignoramus31296

formatting link

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

formatting link

I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus31296

formatting link

formatting link

Mostly the wife gets about half the family income. Since the wife had no income, and no doubt little prospect of earning anything like that, she got half of his. Fair, no?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

formatting link

First of all, the reporting on this whole story has been really sloppy from the beginning, so I would not take anything you read as gospel. I would assume that the $445k figure is what he made from GE. A lot of rich and not-so-rich people put their investments in a trust to avoid inheritance taxes, so his investment income may have technically stayed as part of the trust and in tax-deferred retirement accounts. All this would have to be disclosed on the divorce papers, but it would not be listed as income if he did not withdraw money from the trust.

Reply to
anorton

formatting link

He's making closer to $1 million per year now.

Reply to
Fred C. Dobbs

formatting link

formatting link

She originally was getting more like $12,500 per month, when he was making about $450,000 per year. As his salary rose, so did the alimony.

Reply to
Fred C. Dobbs

How would he have known that his salary would increase at that rate?

Probably options vesting or a trust or something like that.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

formatting link

Plus she was taking care of their nutty kid.

Reply to
ATP

formatting link

Indeed. As it turns out, he really got the better end of the deal - the cost of taking care of the kid was higher than either anticipated.

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

On 12/17/2012 10:33 PM, Ignoramus31296 wrote: ...

As in all matters of law, the _specific_ circumstances control. It will have been based on total mutual assets, not just an annual payroll and other factors including projected earnings, etc., etc., etc., ...

And, of course, the circumstances and how badly did he want the heck out can be the controlling factor over mere monies if the situation were bad enough. Or, otoh, how badly he may have behaved may have given her a great deal of leverage.

I'm sure each was well represented... :)

Reply to
dpb

Yes, that was an expensive alimony, a real shot to the head. If the boy had a man in his life, he may have been a lot better off.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Indeed. As it turns out, he really got the better end of the deal - the cost of taking care of the kid was higher than either anticipated.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

formatting link

>
Reply to
Jon Elson

Hey, _you're_ the Democrat (whose party made that possible.) The rest of us don't like that, either. I'm guessing that some liberal judge gave her 50% of his income -plus- a bunch to support the kid and his doctor? (when $100k would have served them better than they likely deserve. I hate alimony results. They're crazy. "One more reason to stay single!" says I.)

Reply to
Larry Jaques

formatting link

A judge saying "Do it or go to jail."?

Reply to
Larry Jaques

her alimony really does seem like a big chunk of his income. However, consi dering his line of work, he very likely had commissions, bonuses, cash ince ntives, even stock payments or options, that were part of his total compens ation package. The number thrown out by the media was just salary. these fo lks were very very well off.

Reply to
ms.crystalblue

considering his line of work, he very likely had commissions, bonuses, cash incentives, even stock payments or options, that were part of his total compensation package. The number thrown out by the media was just salary. these folks were very very well off.

No commissions - he was a tax specialist, looking for ways to reduce the firm's tax liability. Bonuses, probably.

The main thing to remember is they were married 24 years, and she worked to put him through business school. She had not worked as a stockbroker in years. A judge would look at that situation and say there was no way she could ever go back to work and attain anything close to the lifestyle she had helped her husband be able to provide to the family, so the spousal support naturally is going to be very generous. I expect Peter Lanza had some expectations of significant compensation increases over the next few years.

Reply to
Fred C. Dobbs

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.