Jason, Amanda Dufner Getting a Divorce

[Shorty]

::scratching head::

Speaking of contradicting....based on your devil's advocate scenario she should be getting a lot more than $2.5M. If she was a loving devoted wife and Duff went to her and said he was done, or better yet, was cheating- she would be looking at an easy $5M+. Based on this small settlement for her, she clearly went to him and said she didnt' want to be married to him anymore and that if he paid her a respectable severance, that she would simply go away.

He has about $20m in career earnings.

Sponsorship tends to be more if you've won a major.

You could safely assume that he has banked north of $30million and $15million plus since their marriage.

2.5m is in the low end of what one would expect, but then, it is possible that some people aren't greedy and choose not to overestimate their contribution to the earning of that income.

[skydog]

I think what he is saying is that Amanda did not do things like a gold digger.

- She is the one that filed for divorce. Gold diggers only do that if they are going to get a big settlement usually after a long time and they rarely do that - Better to just keep spending the money.

- She got less than half of what he made LAST YEAR alone.

Not sure why you are scratching your head. You seem to agree with Erik on that. Either she is one of the worst gold diggers or she simply was not one. I am choosing to believe the latter.

Whether she's a gold digger or not is semantics and I don't really care- I was just opposing the ridiculous notion  that she was some loving, devoted, wife and that Dufner brought about the divorce. Because if that had been the case she would be getting a lot more than $2.5M

Assuming she had no legitimate grounds for the divorce-$2.5M for three years of service (while also living a life of luxury for three years) is not too bad and would definitely not categorize her as one of the worst gold diggers. Could a grade A gold digger have done better? Probably, but she gets a solid B-B+ in my book.

[Ferguson]

Whether she's a gold digger or not is semantics and I don't really care- I was just opposing the ridiculous notion  that she was some loving, devoted, wife and that Dufner brought about the divorce. Because if that had been the case she would be getting a lot more than $2.5M $2.5M for three years of service (while also living a life of luxury for three years) is not too bad and would definitely not categorize her as one of the worst gold diggers. Could a grade A gold digger have done better? Probably, but she gets a solid B-B+ in my book.

Three years in the eyes of the court is like a simple break up. Like I said - it will be a quick split and settlement. Had they been married 8-10 years, she would have gotten a hell of a lot more.

[dkolo]

::scratching head::

Speaking of contradicting....based on your devil's advocate scenario she should be getting a lot more than $2.5M. If she was a loving devoted wife and Duff went to her and said he was done, or better yet, was cheating- she would be looking at an easy $5M+. Based on this small settlement for her, she clearly went to him and said she didnt' want to be married to him anymore and that if he paid her a respectable severance, that she would simply go away.

Look, no one *clearly* did anything here with respect to this divorce. Don't read anything into the financials that were announced. You don't know whether a) any of it is actually true and not an agreed-upon story b) what the state divorce law is wherever she filed c) any pre-nup issues / limitations and d) whether there were other terms that were undisclosed. So don't speculate based on what you've heard. It's really doubtful you have enough information to draw any informed conclusions.

I don't say that as a slam, just that there's really not much you can say definitively without being privy to the proceedings directly

One important fact: in the eyes of the court a real marriage is not recognized until the parties hit 5 years.

What do you base that off of? That's not the case in any of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

Now I am truly sorry for derailing this thread, no sarcasm (it's hard to read inflection/tone in a post), this will be my last post here about this. Mods feel free to clean up my garbage if you want.

This is a copy of a pm I sent a member a few minutes ago:

Thanks for your reply, thanks for reminding me you're right. I'm in a bad mood sitting at work and browsing the site and probably shouldn't have said anything. I am so conflicted because I have read a lot of great things on here, and the golf/swing information is invaluable (even from people who's online posting personalities I don't get along with)...I have almost made the "Hi, my name is..." post many times and then reading certain things turn me off.

Again, you're probably absolutely right about the good outweighing the negativity, your post is a good example of what I am giving up by not being a part of the community. Maybe one day, but until then I don't trust myself to post because I'll end up getting banned for being a jerk to some people.

Have a great day and a good rest of your week.

I stand by how I feel, but I apologize for the way I went about it. At the very bottom of it all, you (and others) are probably right, that me painting an entire forum with the same brush is not smart. I read this forum daily, multiple times, so for that I say thanks for all the info.

Have a good day all.

Travis

I really encourage you to participate more; you'll get way more enjoyment from it and be pleasantly surprised by the great interactions you have with people here. I say that based on personal experience. This whole thing took a turn; give peace a chance, haha.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty

I'm more than happy to pass a negative judgement on people who post pictures of themselves like this.

There's that word again -  narshiccistisstic.

Would you like to tell me what's wrong with this photo? Because from what I see, she's not doing anything wrong.

Nothing wrong for being narcissistic unless she was being topless in a public area where there is a law against that. The picture looks good though.

[skydog]

^^^It was probably worth the $2.5M. Knowing how it ends, don't think I would have done anything differently if I was Dufner...

[No Mulligans]

This kind of clears up the "incompatible temperament" language as it appears that is a term written into the Ala. divorce laws.  It's also interesting that Jason is keeping much more than half in light of this article (I'm assuming Jason's net worth is much more than 5 million, and his future earnings potential is much more than 5 million).

Quote: http://divorceinfo.com/alnofault.htm

Is Alabama a No-Fault Divorce State?

Every now and then one of my clients says something like “Alabama is a no-fault state, isn’t it?” I always reply, “it depends.” It depends on what you mean when you ask the question. If you’re asking whether Alabama requires that a person prove fault to obtain a divorce, the answer is no. Ala. Code § 30-2-1 states the permissible grounds for divorce. In amongst the “traditional” grounds like adultery, abandonment, violence, and imprisonment lie the dual grounds of incompatible temperament and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Courts accept the testimony of either party that incompatibility exists, so there’s no longer a requirement that either party prove that either party is “at fault” to obtain a divorce.

The corollary to this principle, of course, is that neither party can stop a divorce from occurring. They can slow it down, they can make it more unpleasant, and they can make it more expensive, but a spouse who’s determined to divorce can make it happen even if his or her spouse is fighting the divorce every step of the way.

However, if what you’re asking whether a judge will pay attention to fault in deciding how to determine property division or issues of spousal support, Alabama is most certainly not a no-fault state. Fault still matters. In those rare cases where the judge decides that one party is “at fault” and the other is innocent, the judge has the power to allocate property division in favor of the innocent party. Ditto with support.

So in a divorce that would “normally” result in modest alimony to be paid by the husband to the wife, if the judge determines that the divorce occurred because the wife had an adulterous affair, the judge could decide that it’s appropriate to award no alimony.

And if a judge would in an equivalent-fault divorce grant the house to the husband and the retirement plan to the wife, a judge might change that and do it differently if the husband had been violent with the wife. Perhaps the judge might give the retirement plan to the wife and then order that the house be sold and the proceeds divided equally.

[Ferguson]

Look, no one *clearly* did anything here with respect to this divorce. Don't read anything into the financials that were announced. You don't know whether a) any of it is actually true and not an agreed-upon story b) what the state divorce law is wherever she filed c) any pre-nup issues / limitations and d) whether there were other terms that were undisclosed. So don't speculate based on what you've heard. It's really doubtful you have enough information to draw any informed conclusions. I don't say that as a slam, just that there's really not much you can say definitively without being privy to the proceedings directly What do you base that off of? That's not the case in any of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with. I really encourage you to participate more; you'll get way more enjoyment from it and be pleasantly surprised by the great interactions you have with people here. I say that based on personal experience. This whole thing took a turn; give peace a chance, haha.

Did you ever file for divorce?

[dkolo]

This kind of clears up the "incompatible temperament" language as it appears that is a term written into the Ala. divorce laws.  It's also interesting that Jason much more than half in light of this article.

Oh, yeah, it's almost definitely a term of art. Same way you always see California couples having "irreconcilable differences." If the law gives you a specific option, that isn't the time to break out your thesaurus. You copy their wording verbatim to leave no doubt you qualify for what you're trying to qualify for.

[dkolo]

Did you ever file for divorce?

Nope.

[Phil McGleno]

Did you ever file for divorce?

My cousin did after about thirteen months. The five-year rule was never a thing because it is not a thing. You made it up. [quote name="skydog" url="/t/81079/jason-amanda-dufner-getting-a-divorce/90#post_1122148"] Whether she's a gold digger or not is semantics and I don't really care-[/quote] You were responding to a discussion in which Vinsk was alleging gold digging and the $2.5M was brought up as an example of why it probably was not. I agree that the low $ amount makes it likely that it is not a gold digging incident. Heck if I care about this stuff, now. Let us talk about golf stuff not divorces.

[Ferguson]

Nope.

[quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/81079/jason-amanda-dufner-getting-a-divorce/90#post_1122167"] My cousin did after about thirteen months. The five-year rule was never a thing because it is not a thing. You made it up. You were responding to a discussion in which Vinsk was alleging gold digging and the $2.5M was brought up as an example of why it probably was not. I agree that the low $ amount makes it likely that it is not a gold digging incident. Heck if I care about this stuff, now. Let us talk about golf stuff not divorces.[/quote] I'm not saying it's a GD rule, and you're not a lawyer. In the eyes of a judge, 3 years is not the same bond as that of 8-10 year marriage. It's called establishment. I know this having filed for divorce after 4 years.

[Phil McGleno]

I'm not saying it's a GD rule, and you're not a lawyer. In the eyes of a judge, 3 years is not the same bond as that of 8-10 year marriage. It's called establishment. I know this having filed for divorce after 4 years.

Calm down. I do not think you are a lawyer either. Maybe your judge screwed you over. A marriage is a marriage. There is no magical time frame that changes things. They are all unique. I am gonna go talk about something that matters now. I suggest you do the same.

[jbishop15]

One important fact: in the eyes of the court a real marriage is not recognized until the parties hit 5 years.

This will be a quick settlement.

Some might say they were polar opposites and some might say it was his DCG.

The only people that can truly tell you are Amanda, Jason or Fritz.

Anyone up for trying to get them on conference call?

I'm not saying it's a GD rule, and you're not a lawyer. In the eyes of a judge, 3 years is not the same bond as that of 8-10 year marriage. It's called establishment.

I know this having filed for divorce after 4 years.

Can you explain to me what in the hell you are talking about? These posts directly contradict each other.

You can't say: "in the eyes of the court a real marriage is not recognized until the parties hit 5 years."

And then say: "I'm not saying it's a GD rule, and you're not a lawyer. In the eyes of a judge, 3 years is not the same bond as that of 8-10 year marriage. It's called establishment."

That doesn't make any sense.

[dkolo]

My cousin did after about thirteen months. The five-year rule was never a thing because it is not a thing. You made it up.

You were responding to a discussion in which Vinsk was alleging gold digging and the $2.5M was brought up as an example of why it probably was not. I agree that the low $ amount makes it likely that it is not a gold digging incident.

Heck if I care about this stuff, now. Let us talk about golf stuff not divorces.

As best as I can tell, what he was getting at was that there is, in some jurisdictions, an option for a less complicated divorce, for which one of many, many prerequisites is that the marriage not be in effect for more than 5 years. But, again, that's super jurisdiction-dependent.

And it certainly doesn't mean that courts don't consider a marriage real if it's under 5 years in duration. So at best the statement was really imprecise and at worst, it's flat wrong.

I'm not saying it's a GD rule, and you're not a lawyer.

I mean, you did, and I am. But whatever. Sorry about your divorce.

[rkim291968]

Gold digging may have not been the reason.   If Shorty's claim of Amanda being a narcissistic person (I know a bit about Narcissistic Personality Disorder due to having lived closely with a few) is right, that kind of person needs constant attention and admiration.   I don't think any PGA tour pro can provide that attention given their job.  But all these are conjectures, and everyone's guess is just as right or wrong.

[jbishop15]

Gold digging may have not been the reason.   If Shorty's claim of Amanda being a narcissistic person (I know a bit about Narcissistic Personality Disorder due to having lived closely with a few) is right, that kind of person needs constant attention and admiration.   I don't think any PGA tour pro can provide that attention given their job.  But all these are conjectures, and everyone's guess is just as right or wrong.

Totally agree. We don't know anything right now, and we have no information/evidence to say she's a narcissist. Hell, if she's a narcissist, then I'm a narcissist, as are basically everyone living today.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Gold digging may have not been the reason.   If Shorty's claim of Amanda being a narcissistic person (I know a bit about Narcissistic Personality Disorder due to having lived closely with a few) is right, that kind of person needs constant attention and admiration.   I don't think any PGA tour pro can provide that attention given their job.  But all these are conjectures, and everyone's guess is just as right or wrong.

Totally agree. We don't know anything right now, and we have no information/evidence to say she's a narcissist. Hell, if she's a narcissist, then I'm a narcissist, as are basically everyone living today.

... and someone said this already, it is none of our business.   Tour talk forum is not gossip forum .