Exoneree Faces Ex-Wife in Compensation Lawsuit

[Tennesseer]

Interesting case. Based on what is written in the article only, is the ex-wife entitled to more of the settlement money? I say no.:

The spring of 1982 seemed full of promise for Steven and Traci Phillips, who had just started a roofing business in Dallas and were expecting their first child.

“He’s extremely ambitious and a very hard worker, a pretty brilliant guy,” she said. “And I was right there by his side the whole time.”

But their family life ended that year, when Steven Phillips was named a suspect in a string of sex crimes. In two trials in 1982 and 1983, he was convicted based largely on eyewitness identifications, despite his wife’s vehement protestations from the witness stand that he could not have committed the crimes.

He pleaded guilty to additional charges to prevent a third trial and a likely life sentence. She said she spent the next decade visiting him in prison, raising their son, sending money for items her husband needed, and hoping to find a way to get him out. Eventually, though, the couple grew apart and divorced in 1992.

Phillips spent 24 years in prison before DNA tests connected another man to the rapes and prompted the courts to declare Phillips innocent. In 2009, the state awarded him lump sum payments totaling more than $2 million, and a monthly annuity of more than $11,000. In total, his compensation package for the time he spent in prison is worth nearly $6 million, not including health care and education benefits he is also eligible to receive.

His ex-wife, now Traci Tucker, is arguing that she is entitled to a portion of that money. The two are locked in a legal battle that her lawyers say is the first of its kind in the nation. Tucker sued Phillips, and last year a Dallas County state district judge awarded her about $150,000.

“He was a victim of a wrongful justice system, and his family was also,” Tucker said.

Phillips is appealing the decision, and both sides expect the case to make its way to the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil court, for a decision on whether former spouses of exonerees are entitled to compensation. It is a question that one legislator who helped write the compensation law said lawmakers had not considered.

“This is an example of the law of unintended consequences,” said state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas. “We did not think about entitlement by spouses who had become divorced from these innocent men while they were in prison.”

More: www.texastribune.org/2013/06/16/exoneree-faces-his-ex-wife-compensation-lawsuit/

[973beachbum]

I would think she is entitled to something if only to make up for the child support she never got.  She may not have been locked up physically, but she sounds like she lived in her own proiate hell for a long time.

[Angel!]

It really seems like she should go after the state as well, not her ex.  But, I do think she should be awarded damages.  This destroyed 10 years of her life, lost their family his income, cost her the money she sent to him in prison.  Not sure if they consider non-financial costs, but it cost her her marriage, cost her the opportunity to have another child with her husband, probably caused enormous amounts of suffering. 

[The Captain]

WOW!!!

I feel for all the parties involved. 

And yes, at the very least she is entitled to actual expenses plus lost child support. 

[shanendoah]

I think she is entitled to something, but I don't think it should come out of what he was awarded. It's not like he was a dead beat dad who committed crimes or even chose not to send child support. He was wrongly convicted of crimes he did not commit. And he is entitled to the compensation the state has given him. I believe his ex-wife is also entitled to compensation, but that it should also come from the state.

[Abby Normal]

I would think she would be able to go after the state for herself and her child.  Much in the same way a spouse can claim loss of sex if the other is injured in that capacity. I can't remember the term.  

It probably would have been better if the settlement itemized out how much was his lost wages, mental anguish for him, mental anguish for family etc.

Sucks for them both.  

[thyme4change]

She was definitely damaged by the wrongful convictions.  I'm not sure where the money should come from, or how much she should get.  

[Deleted]

It seems to me that the state made the mistake with him & they paid him back. If the wife suffered, she should sue the state.
Child support is an interesting question. People get child support to provide support for the child. How does awarding child support after the fact help the child? That's kind of a grey area to me.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 18, 2013 20:48:30 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

It seems to me that the state made the mistake with him & they paid him back. If the wife suffered, she should sue the state.
Child support is an interesting question. People get child support to provide support for the child. How does awarding child support after the fact help the child? That's kind of a grey area to me.

Under 'normal' divorce conditions, the noncustodial parent would contribute to the financial welfare of the child. In this case, the mother would have had to kicking more financial support than would normally have occurred. So in a sense, any child support paid to the mother now would really be payback forte 'extra' she had to kick in.

The divorce would never have occurred if the guy had never was convicted. So I think the state should deal with the ex-wife separately.

[tallguy]

Jun 18, 2013 15:59:26 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

I would think she would be able to go after the state for herself and her child.  Much in the same way a spouse can claim loss of sex if the other is injured in that capacity. I can't remember the term.  

It probably would have been better if the settlement itemized out how much was his lost wages, mental anguish for him, mental anguish for family etc.

Sucks for them both.  

Loss of consortium.  And no, it isn't just limited to sex. 

Agreed that she should get something.  Strongly disagree that it should come from the exoneree unless that was specified in his compensation award.  He did not leave her voluntarily and should not be liable for any claimed injury on her part.  If she wanted HIS part of it, she should have stayed....   

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2013 20:56:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 18, 2013 20:48:30 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

It seems to me that the state made the mistake with him & they paid him back. If the wife suffered, she should sue the state.
Child support is an interesting question. People get child support to provide support for the child. How does awarding child support after the fact help the child? That's kind of a grey area to me.

Under 'normal' divorce conditions, the noncustodial parent would contribute to the financial welfare of the child. In this case, the mother would have had to kicking more financial support than would normally have occurred. So in a sense, any child support paid to the mother now would really be payback forte 'extra' she had to kick in.

The divorce would never have occurred if the guy had never was convicted. So I think the state should deal with the ex-wife separately.

Tennesseer the first part I can kind of see but I still kind of disagree with.
The part about the divorce wouldn't have happen if the guy hadn't been convicted, well we might assume that but the odds would say that there was a 50% chance of divorce no matter what.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 18, 2013 21:33:47 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Jun 18, 2013 20:56:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Under 'normal' divorce conditions, the noncustodial parent would contribute to the financial welfare of the child. In this case, the mother would have had to kicking more financial support than would normally have occurred. So in a sense, any child support paid to the mother now would really be payback forte 'extra' she had to kick in.

The divorce would never have occurred if the guy had never was convicted. So I think the state should deal with the ex-wife separately.

Tennesseer the first part I can kind of see but I still kind of disagree with.
The part about the divorce wouldn't have happen if the guy hadn't been convicted, well we might assume that but the odds would say that there was a 50% chance of divorce no matter what.

OT-I think I read in the link to the guy told his wife to divorce him and move on-he wasn't getting out of jail any time soon. Besides we really don't know if they would have divorced if none of this had happened. In a court case, to say they might have divorced under normal conditions because there is a 50% chance of divorce no matter what would be sure speculation. We just don't know what would have happened.

[Virgil Showlion]

Is "exoneree" even a word?

[Deleted]

I totally think that the family should be able to sue the state & all those eye-witnesses that ID'd the wrong guy!!!

I don't think they should take from his money.  She could have joined his litigation or initiated her own.

Imagine the strife in life for her & her child.  Financial suffering, damage to family & life, lost opportunities, social impacts (bet they had to move) and psychological damages for her and kid.

Can't imagine this happening with how conservative our justice system is.  I'd put every one of those witnesses in jail for at least a week and let them stew on their error.  Lynch mob mentality must have been in force.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 18, 2013 21:46:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is "exoneree" even a word?

A new word over the past few years associated with the Innocence Project.

nws.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_display_alpha.php?letter=Ex&last=30

[tallguy]

Jun 18, 2013 21:46:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is "exoneree" even a word?

Are you really telling us you can't look that up on your own?  

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 18, 2013 21:58:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 18, 2013 21:46:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is "exoneree" even a word?

Are you really telling us you can't look that up on your own?  

I did and it came up as a made-up word. I figured I'd publish my findings in the form of a rhetorical question.

[tallguy]

Jun 18, 2013 22:09:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 18, 2013 21:58:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Are you really telling us you can't look that up on your own?  

I did and it came up as a made-up word. I figured I'd publish my findings in the form of a rhetorical question.

Looks like you have the same issue that Paul does.  If you look at better sites you'll get better information back.  Just sayin'.    

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 18, 2013 22:15:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 18, 2013 22:09:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I did and it came up as a made-up word. I figured I'd publish my findings in the form of a rhetorical question.

Looks like you have the same issue that Paul does.  If you look at better sites you'll get better information back.  Just sayin'.    

It isn't a real word.

If submitting a word was enough to make it "real", we'd have to accept "exhaustipated" and "exitlude" as real words too.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 18, 2013 22:18:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 18, 2013 22:15:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Looks like you have the same issue that Paul does.  If you look at better sites you'll get better information back.  Just sayin'.    

It isn't a real word.

If submitting a word was enough to make it "real", we'd have to accept "exhaustipated" and "exitlude" as real words too.

'Tweet' of Twitter fame (along with flash mob, fiscal cliff, and dad dancing) were officially entered into the Oxford English Dictionary this week as words. You ever know who or what they will let in.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 18, 2013 22:27:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 18, 2013 22:18:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It isn't a real word.

If submitting a word was enough to make it "real", we'd have to accept "exhaustipated" and "exitlude" as real words too.

'Tweet' of Twitter fame (along with flash mob, fiscal cliff, and dad dancing) were officially entered into the Oxford English Dictionary this week as words. You ever know who or what they will let in.

I have no problem with it. It's concise, useful, and the meaning is obvious. One might say it's a perfectly crumulent word.

It just isn't real... yet.

[tallguy]

Well, if they cite examples of usage in HuffPo, NPR, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal (in a short and likely not-at-all exhaustive list) I'm willing to say it has entered common usage and will be made "real" shortly if it hasn't already.  Dictionary acceptance is a lagging indicator of realness.    

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 18, 2013 22:39:13 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, if they cite examples of usage in HuffPo, NPR, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal (in a short and likely not-at-all exhaustive list) I'm willing to say it has entered common usage and will be made "real" shortly if it hasn't already.  Dictionary acceptance is a lagging indicator of realness.    

Heresy! djAdvocate would filet you alive.

His world rests like a great inverted pyramid on the belief that the real-world definition of "liberal" is invalid because it isn't listed in the dictionary, and that this absence is absolutely not due to dictionaries being lagging indicators.

With fire in his belly, he will defend to the death a sacred truth: Dictionaries are proactive in ushering in neologisms to the official English language.

[tallguy]

"Liberal" is a real word already.  It's not his fault that conservatives all use it incorrectly.

[mmhmm]

Exoneree is a word with training wheels.  As soon as it learns to fly on its own, it'll be a real word.  There.  Settled.

[tallguy]

Jun 18, 2013 23:12:08 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Exoneree is a word with training wheels.  As soon as it learns to fly on its own, it'll be a real word.  There.  Settled.

SETTLED??!!  WHAT THE HELL??!!  NOBODY comes here to have anything SETTLED!!


 

[Miss Tequila]

Regardless of whether or not he was wrongly incarcerated, he has a responsibility to pay for his child.  While he earned no wages all of the years he was in prison and therefore couldn't pay child support, he now has money and should fork over what he would have had to pay for his child.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

I agree that the ex wife was harmed (marriage ruined, family shamed, etc) but her ass wasn't thrown in prison.  If she is suing for anything about what she should have received in child support she is just being greedy.

[Angel!]

Jun 18, 2013 22:31:20 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

One might say it's a perfectly crumulent word.

It just isn't real... yet.

It is spelled cromulent. Everyone knows crumulent isn't a real word



On the other hand cromulent is a perfectly cromulent word.

[973beachbum]

Jun 19, 2013 5:51:42 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Regardless of whether or not he was wrongly incarcerated, he has a responsibility to pay for his child.  While he earned no wages all of the years he was in prison and therefore couldn't pay child support, he now has money and should fork over what he would have had to pay for his child.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

I agree that the ex wife was harmed (marriage ruined, family shamed, etc) but her ass wasn't thrown in prison.  If she is suing for anything about what she should have received in child support she is just being greedy.

So, she lost her marriage, her business and paid for everthing like his legal defense by herself along with raising a child by herself with no support.  I also seriously doubt that her husband being convicted of rape didn't have an effect on her earnings although she wasn't in jail.  I can't imagine wanting to be compasated for all that as being greedy.

Skipping the argument over who owes her the money I do think she is entitled to compensation for her losses.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 19, 2013 11:20:58 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 18, 2013 22:31:20 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

One might say it's a perfectly crumulent word.

It just isn't real... yet.

It is spelled cromulent. Everyone knows crumulent isn't a real word



On the other hand cromulent is a perfectly cromulent word.

You people pick at every persnippery detail.

As for the OP, I think it's obvious the paraexoneree should also be a compensatee. She stuck by her husband even when criminees identified him as the criminal. Admittedly she's either a divorcer or divorcee, but settlements are meant to compensate compensatees for lost wages, etc. as well as for restitution for wrongful incarceration. The wife would have been a receivee of part of her husband's wealth in the divorce had he not been an incarceree, hence she can reasonably claim she's a deprivee.