New York Giants defensive end – and recent Super Bowl champion – Michael Strahan’s attorneys were back in court this week, battling Strahan’s ex-wife Jean and her lawyers. Last year, a New Jersey judge awarded Jean Strahan over $15 million in their divorce plus an additional $18,000 per month in child support. The judgment was stayed or suspended pending an appeal. This week, the New Jersey appeals court heard arguments from both sides as to why the lower court’s decision was or wasn’t appropriate. The Strahans filed for divorce in March 2005. It quickly became ugly when Jean made public accusations of adultery and physical abuse by her husband. The couple married in 1999 and have young twin daughters. They signed a premarital agreement (also called a prenuptial agreement) which gave Jean 50% of all marital assets (estimated at $22 million) and 20% of Strahan’s income each year they were married in the event of a divorce. Strahan was apparently allowed under the agreement to designate what was and wasn’t a joint marital asset – as long as he set aside 20% of his annual income for his wife. Strahan turned pro in 1992 and presumably also had substantial separate or premarital assets.

During the divorce, Strahan argued that he was not obligated to pay Jean the 20% of his income because she did not ask for it each year of their marriage. His lawyers also argued that he earned so much money which he allowed to be designated as joint assets that her share matched or exceeded the 20% set aside provision. The lower court judge did not agree with Strahan’s interpretation of the agreement and ordered him to pay $14 million plus interest (almost 70% of the marital property) as well as child support.

Strahan’s attorneys argued to the appeals court that the lower court’s decision penalized Strahan for not setting aside that 20% during the marriage and ended up awarding Jean far more than she ever would have received otherwise. At least one appellate judge reportedly asked Jean’s attorney why it was appropriate to punish Strahan rather than make an equitable distribution of assets.

The Strahan prenuptial agreement is unusual (and has been resoundingly criticized) because it seems to give the non-earning spouse substantially more than she would otherwise receive pursuant to divorce law and because it allowed one spouse to designate what property was “joint”. New Jersey, where the Strahans lived, is an equitable distribution state – marital assets are supposed to be divided in a fair and just manner, which could be a 50/50 split but doesn’t have to be. It is possible that the 20% clause in the contract was supposed to take the place of spousal support or alimony. Even in that light, it is a very strange provision. And one that is now causing Strahan a lot of grief.

The appeals court is not expected to make a quick decision in the case due to the sheer volume of the official record of the case, which must be reviewed.

Sources: The Star-Ledger, New York Post