Ok, admit it guys, you've had those nasty day dreams about making your ex pay for all that he's done to you. And now you can hear about a case where someone actually did just that in the Tyler v. Shenkman case.
Of course, normally I'd say this is simply a case about domestic violence, but since the victim, Nancy Tyler, is a lawyer herself, I'm not sure it's quite so simple. I have to say I've had day dreams about doing in my lawyers in my day, so who can tell.
I'm sorry. Am I not being PC? I just can't be when I talk about lawyers. When it comes to Lawyers, men or women, --and oftentimes the women are much worse than the men-- as far as I'm concerned, boiling oil is too good for any one of them. So when a lawyer suffers in a divorce, sorry guys, you just aren't going to get much sympathy from me. And, I'm looking at an attorney, Nancy Tyler, who received in the divorce settlement BOTH of the Parties two homes and an entire $100,000 in attorney's fees. That's one heck of a lot of money for one person to get. I mean, I didn't get any money for attorney's fees and I sure deserved it.
But, down to brass tacks, what happened in this divorce? Apparently, the couple married in Chesire, CT in either 1993 or 1994, and then chose the name Tyler out of a phone book. The two had a child, a son, in 1989 and Richard Shenkman, an ad executive, adopted Tyler's two children from a previous marriage, a son and a daughter.
The couple bought a beach house in Niantic in 1995 with Nancy Tyler paying for the home out of her savings and obtaining title to the home. The couple also lived in a house in South Windsor where they had been living prior to the marriage. Then, just about 2006, the marriage began to fall apart and Nancy Tyler filed for divorce on July 19, 2006. The divorce was finalized two years later.
Early in 2007, when the divorce was still underway, the court gave ownership of the Niantic beach house to Nancy Tyler and ordered Richard Shenkamn out of the house. Then, in March 2007, the police responded to a frantic phone call from Richard Shenkman reporting a fire which he had apparently set. When the police arrived, they found him, with his dogs, trapped by flames on the roof over the house's front porch. A police affidavit describing the scene said he twice resisted rescue efforts and had to be dragged down.
Then in July 2009 Richard Shenkman took Nancy Tyler hostage at gunpoint and held her against her will for nine hours in their South Windsor Home. There was a police standoff and eventually Nancy Tyler was able to free herself at the end of the day. At one point, during the standoff, Mr. Shenkman demanded a priest to give Nancy the last rites of the church and then he demanded that the couple be remarried. Once Nancy escaped, Shenkman set fire to the house and when the flames finally reached the basement where he was hiding out, he left the home and was disarmed by the police. He ended up in jail and in contempt of court.
Still, Richard Shenkman was able to cause his ex wife continued harm. Ultimately, she ended up homeless since he burned down their houses and then she ended up being stuck with paying all the bills. This is how it happened. First, Richard Shenkman refused to pay the $100,000 in legal fees he was ordered to pay his wife at the time of dissolution.
Second, even though the Niantic house was granted to Nancy Tyler in the divorce, Mr. Shenkman filed a civil lawsuit stating that he was entitled to half of the homeowner's insurance settlement, and so Ms. Tyler cannot use that money to rebuild the house until the issue is settled. Even though the civil court ruled against him, Mr Shenkman has appealed the ruling and it will take substantial time until the appeal is heard. Meanwhile, Ms. Tyler will be unable to collect any money, yet she still has to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance on an empty lot.
Also, Nancy Tyler received the South Windsor property in the marriage settlement; however, since Mr. Shenkman let the homeowner's policy lapse on that property, Nancy has to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance before the property can change hands. Meanwhile, Ms. Tyler has learned that her ex, without her knowledge, had taken out a home equity line of credit amounting to $100,000 on the South Windsor home and then stopped paying it. So now she has to pay that as well. Plus, Mr. Shenkman stopped paying the property taxes on the South Windsor property so there are $32,000 in back taxes that she has to pay there.
Is there any explanation for this behavior? A clue lies in Mr. Shenkman's remark, "How dare you put my character on trial at your 'kangaroo court' attempting to fight me for money, houses and trinkets that I've already lost."
Speaking for people like Nancy Tyler, Julie Porzio, an attorney who had a client who was killed before her eyes in an incidence of domestic violence stated, "I have believed for the longest time that the system is broken. I lived it, so I am clear the system is broken."
I mean, how was Richard Shenkman able to play financial games such as take out a home equity line of credit during the pendente lite period in clear violation of the automatic orders. Will Judges ever, ever, ever enforce those orders to prevent situations like this? Once Shenkman had burned down one house, why did they ever let him out of jail without some kind of supervision, so then he goes out and does it again? What's up? No one gets protection from this guy who was so clearly out of control?
Ultimately, when people feel humiliated, when people feel they have lost everything--their children, their standing in the community, all the financial security they've worked for over a lifetime (both Richard Shenkman and Nancy Tyler were 60 and 57 respectively--all through the manipulations of a corrupt legal system and a bunch of unethical lawyers--when people feel that they have not been treated fairly, it is not surprising that, occasionally, there are some very extreme responses.
If the CT family court system continues with a winner takes all attitude, and if the CT family court system continues to allow perjury and financial wrongdoing without imposing any legal consequences, tragedy is the inevitable result, simply and quietly as people walk away from the system broken in spirit, or outright in flagrant ways that I have just described here in this particular case.
Thoughts anyone?
As a followup to this article, Mr. Schenkman was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison. For more information on that see the following link:
http://articles.courant.com/2012-01-04/news/hc-shenkman-sentence-0105-20120104_1_richard-shenkman-claim-of-mental-illness-prosecutor-vicki-melchiorre
I am frightened. Generally and specifically. First, Catharine, as a lawyer, I must say I take offense at your generalized view of divorce lawyers. While I understand where it comes from, I still think it is a bit un-nerving, to say the least. To wit: not all Muslims are terrorists; not all men cheat; not all whites are racists; not all Mexicans are illegal aliens....not all divorce lawyers are bottom-feeding scum bags....that said, in spite of myself, parts of that story were hilarious. I know. Crazy. But funny. This part just put me under: "How dare you put my character on trial at your 'kangaroo court' attempting to fight me for money, houses and trinkets that I've already lost" Emphasis on Kangaroo Court...
ReplyDeleteWow. Marriage is a scary mofo-ing thing. Nothing like marriage to transform a person into a raving lunatic. Love literally kills! As a former divorce lawyer, I definitely think that the job of "divorce lawyer" should be banished; as should "divorce court" and "divorce judge." And parties should handle their own divorces. I think there will be less insanity; more fairness and maybe, even less divorces.
To be honest, the way I see divorce court working, if you aren't willing to go along with the corruption in court, I don't see how you can earn a living. It's all about wheeling and dealing and everyone being in everyone else's pocket and if you aren't willing to do that, you'll be cut out of the feeding chain. So, as far as I can see, if you aren't a corrupt divorce attorney, you are probably an unemployed divorce attorney. You yourself are describing yourself as a "former" divorce attorney. So, that goes to show what I'm saying is right.
ReplyDeleteUh, Cathy, I think your point stands.
ReplyDeleteFrom Anonymous: "...in spite of myself, parts of that story were hilarious."
o.O Are you kidding me? Only a true CT divorce lawyer could think anything about this horrific abuse and tragedy is "hilarious". Perhaps "former" due to his/her inability to articulate a sound argument, or carry a point from introduction ("I am frightened. Generally and specifically.") to any form of conclusion.
I'm with him/her about abolishing divorce courts and attorneys. However, when one is trying to free oneself from a raving psycho who holds his ex at gunpoint and burns down the houses he lost, can we all at least agree that it's $%&ing stupid to think that it would be anything but impossible to negotiate with him? Like, how about Susan Powell's negotiating power with Josh? Or Mildred Muhammad negotiating with her ex, the DC sniper, who got custody of his kids through Devoted Dads funding? Or Katie Tagle who's baby son was shot by his father because he didn't want her to break up with him? Once again, I think this betrays the divorce court attitude that is underlying all it's proceedings: These idiot people are here because they are too stupid to work out their own problems. Then self-righteous and punitive decisions ensue.
Often we are actually there to get help in escaping a psycho who has been hurting us and our children. Unfortunately, they only avenue we have to accomplish that safety we are entitled to is in the deadly claws of family courts, who are raking in money hand over fist not only by bankrupting litigants, but also from DHHS programs, using "responsible fatherhood initiative" grants as a means to throw cases, and generally taking pleasure in destroying lives.
So yes, divorce courts, as they exist now, need to die an expeditious death. What to replace them with?? I don't know. As long as there are federal monies pumped into the process, the task will find corrupt participants to fill the role and take the cash. Psychos will ALWAYS lie and cast doubts on their victims' testimony. All they have to do to get away with their crimes is just shift the fulcrum a little over to the victim and then everyone calls it "he said / she said" and looks away.
So how about this? Let's think more about that quaint little ol' document called the CONSTITUTION. Why don't we actually apply RULES OF EVIDENCE in family litigation? How about... I dunno... not allowing hearsay, perjury, or any form of circumventing the rule of law? How about getting rid of immunity for any court personnel who breaks any of these rules, procedures, or laws? Let's stop the CT practice book nonsense where judges and lawyers are making ad hoc LAW. How about any "expert" who violates all known principles of his/her profession NOT be rewarded with kickbacks, lecturing gigs, and more cases, and instead be stripped of all licensure, and held liable for malpractice including damages to the party harmed? Maybe... anyone who has received federal grant money to pre-determine case outcomes goes to jail forever?
How's that for a start?
Oh, my God, I couldn't say it better. Thanks for saying every word you said.
ReplyDeleteI agree with anonymous - if you attempt to expose the corruption in the system - you are attacked by it. I agree that the CT practice book is ad hoc law. My ex's psychologist has since become part of the GAL's divorce group - quid pro quo - you betcha. I brought this up in trial - oh man, the judge slammed me and covered up the GAL. aargh !!!
ReplyDeleteI can't believe the drivel of information in the article by Ms. Sloper. Inaccurate details about what occurred and when; generalizations about divorce lawyers and courts that are laughably juvenile. It would be shameful - and a waste of money - if a news organization actually pays you to write on it's behalf.
ReplyDeleteIf you know of any specific inaccurate details, or generalizations which are laughably juvenile and can point them out to me, I will investigate and fix anything that is a legitimate criticism. However, the comment section is also your opportunity to provide your own perspective on these issues. Also, if you feel very strongly about any particular issue, you are free to submit your perspective--see the submissions instructions--and I will be happy to publish your article that provides your alternative perspective. Of course, I would presume you thoroughly fact check your article, etc. This is what I try to do, although I'm not perfect, and as I say, if you find anything that you think needs fixing, let me know.
ReplyDelete