Divorcing Husband Gives Wife Who Vilified Him in YouTube Video $750,000, Wife Says He's...

GlennSacks.com ^ | 7/22/08 | Glenn Sacks

[PercivalWalks]

"Basically throwing me out on the street." Yup. Getting $750,000, as agreed in their prenup, is being "thrown out into the street."

You remember Tricia Walsh-Smith--according to the AP, she vilified husband Philip Smith in a "furious YouTube video, which has attracted more than 3 million hits. She makes embarrassing claims about their intimate life and then calls his office to repeat those claims to a stunned assistant.

"On the video, Walsh-Smith also goes through their wedding album, describing family members as 'bad,' 'evil' or 'nasty,' and expresses concern about eviction from the couple's luxury apartment."

Her routine was so over-the-top that the judge actually sided with the husband, criticizing Walsh-Smith for "a calculated and callous campaign to embarrass and humiliate her husband" in order to extort more money out of him than was in the prenup.

They were married in 1999 and, luckily for Smith, they had no children. If they had, I'm sure by now Smith would be a "child molester," a "wife-beater," and a bunch of other things.

Read the full Associated Press story here. The two are pictured.

Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com

[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]

[WakeUpAndVote]

Some people luck out and never get that far.

[JamesP81]

That's not a good viewpoint - you can't be so superficial to hold a woman's good looks against her.

I'm not holding her looks against her. I'm confronting the reality that attractive women who are interested in me are probably so interested for reasons other than an honest relationship. It's related to that 'too good to be true' rule. I know for a fact I'm not the greatest catch, so when a good catch of a lady shows interest in me, I have to wonder why.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

The main argument I was making is ?
Men ? think about it very hard before you get married.
The other part of the argument is ?
If women don't like it when they are told they are GOLD DIGGERS, then, don't complain about it when men are seen to be only going after trim, slim, models types.

[enraged]

And, ‘No matter how cute she is, someone, somewhere is sick of putting up with her s**t!’

[river rat]

That skank has “danger” written all over that lifted face.

I doubt the screwing he got was worth the screwing he’s gonna get.

[Rebelbase]

Well now at least we know the going rate for old dudes getting into the matrimony sack with young vixens is $750,000.

Unless you can marry a Paul McCartney type then it ups to $40,000,000.

[Stoat]

For those who haven't seen the original YouTube video:

YouTube - Tricia Walsh Smith - The video that started it all!

I'm noticing that the last text comments at that page were from 19 hours ago.....just about the time of the judge's verdict.  hmmmmm.....

Unmarried gents take careful note....this is what you want to avoid at all costs.

[Rebelbase]

Her Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx_WKxqQF2o

[fanfan]

No matter how much they deny it, most ( not all ) women marry for MONEY.

Not true, FRiend.

Just the ex-wives.

;-)

[Tax-chick]

Ha! I married a guy with debt. Fixed him up, though.

[LongElegantLegs]

So Typical

This seems typical to you? No wonder you sound so bitter...

[WOBBLY BOB]

I’d let someone run me over in the street for $750k.

[JamesP81]

I’d let someone run me over in the street for $750k.

It'd depend on the vehicle. If it was Chevy Suburban, probably not. If it was a Smart Car, on the other hand....

[fanfan]

I have seen women leave their ( not so wealthy husband, but has a stable job ) husbands because he i.e. lost his job, got a physical disability......

Yes. And then they sue him for support.

[lesser_satan]

She definitely looks like a bunny-boiler.

[Tax-chick]

Well, if he lost his job, then by definition, he doesn’t have a stable job.

[WOBBLY BOB]

true. I’d take my chances with the “smartcar” and make sure John Edwards was nearby.

[fanfan]

Now he’s got credit!

LOL

[fanfan]

Well, if he lost his job, then by definition, he doesn’t have a stable job.

Then they sue for any other money he has....savings, pension, disability.

It's for the children, you know.

[ozzymandus]

The old fool should have known this would happen. She probably got mad when he didn’t die after a couple of years and leave her everything. The judge shouldn’t have given her a penny.