Ex-Wife Sued Former Husband Over $6M Compensation For The 24 Years He Spent In Prison For Crimes He Didn't Commit, She Didn't Receive A Penny

An appeals court held that a man who was exonerated of a rape for which he had previously served 25 years in jail was exempt from sharing Texas compensation with his ex-wife.

Just about two years had passed since Steven Phillips and Traci Tucker had become husband and wife when he was detained and accused in 1982. Ten years later, when he was imprisoned for an extended period of time, she filed for divorce.

However, after serving 25 years in prison, DNA evidence freed Phillips in 2008.

Tucker filed a lawsuit against Phillips in 2010 for lost wages during their marriage, which she claimed should have been considered community property rather than Phillip's separate property. Phillips is entitled to about $6 million in damages under the Tim Cole Act in Texas for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

Tucker received a portion of the money in September 2012 from the 255th Judicial District Court's Judge Lori Chrisman Hockett.

"Of the compensation and benefits received by the respondent for his wrongful imprisonment during the marriage to petitioner, $228,919 was the community property of the petitioner and the respondent, which was not divided by the divorce," Hockett wrote. "Petitioner is entitled to receive from the respondent $114,459.50 for her 50% community property interest."

The decision was overturned on Monday by a three-judge panel from the 5th District Court of Appeals, who cited the clear language of the law that specifies that the payments are "based solely on the period of wrongful incarceration and is not based on, or related to, any particular exoneree's economic loss or lost wages while in prison."

Randy Turner, Phillips' Fort Worth-based attorney, claimed that his client "really deserved a break."

"Steven was thrilled when I gave him the news," Turner said in an interview. "First he was imprisoned for 25 years for crimes he did not commit. Then, when he was finally exonerated and released from prison, a greedy Lubbock lawyer claimed he was entitled to half of the $2 million Steven received from the state. We litigated that lawsuit and, when it was finally concluded, Steven's ex-wife sued him so she could get a piece of the pie. He was ready for the lawsuits to end so he could get on with his life."

Since exonerees lose their right to sue the state in federal court for damages, the Monday reversal rejected Tucker's attempt to compare her ex's Tim Cole Act award to a settlement.

"As Tucker concedes, however, the act itself does not characterize any portion of the monetary compensation awarded under the act as lost wages," Justice David Evans wrote for the panel. "On the contrary, all eligible exonerees are entitled to compensation based solely on the number of years wrongfully incarcerated multiplied by $80,000 without regard to the exoneree's education, work history, earning capacity, or other evidence of the economic losses incurred while wrongfully imprisoned."

The appeals court highlighted that the law contains a provision for the collection of unpaid child support, even though it was sympathetic to the suffering of the exonerees' families. According to Evans, Tucker received payment under this clause.

"But nowhere in the act does the Legislature provide compensation for the spouse of an exoneree," Evans wrote. "Allowing spouses and former spouses of the wrongfully convicted to sue the exoneree for a portion of their statutory compensation might well require the exoneree to expend a considerable portion of his recovery on extended legal proceedings to defend his award."

In 2009, Phillips filed a complaint against his former Lubbock attorney, Kevin Glasheen, alleging that Glasheen had failed to advise Phillips that he was at the time entitled to $50,000 for each year of his unjust imprisonment, even in the lack of a lawsuit.

After Phillips' release in 2009, the Tim Cole Act was passed, raising the annual compensation to $80,000.

According to lawyer Turner, there are additional exonerees who, like Phillips, were concerned they might face legal action if the Fifth Court ruled in favor of Tucker.

"If the court had ruled in his ex-wife's favor, it would have opened the floodgates to litigation by all exonerees' ex-wives," he said. "Whenever a future exoneree walked out of the prison gates, his first stop would have to be at an attorney's office to prepare for the inevitable lawsuit. Most exonerees' wives divorce them while they are in prison. Some of these men, who spent decades in prison and have no concept of how to manage money, have spent the lump-sum check they received from the state. If they were sued by their ex-wives, they could be hit with judgments for money they no longer have and forced to file bankruptcy."