Leaderboard 728 X 90

Thursday, October 6, 2011

CEO With Deep Pockets Has Children on Food Stamps in Alabama

Ted Rollins

The CEO of a student-housing development company has an ex wife and two daughters who are on food stamps in Alabama.

Ted Rollins, the head of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, helped his company complete a $380-million IPO late last year. And a South Carolina divorce-court judge found that Rollins belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families and has the use of multiple private aircraft. But Rollins managed to get the divorce case unlawfully moved to Alabama, and the resulting judgment means that his ex wife and two daughters  qualify for food stamps.

Sherry Carroll Rollins said she and the girls now are on food stamps--and have been for some time. That's because Alabama Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson ordered Ted Rollins to pay only $500 in alimony and $815 in child support--a monthly total of $1,315. Our research indicates that is a shockingly low level of support for a man of Rollins' means, a CEO whose family owns Orkin Pest Control and other highly profitable enterprises.

As a comparison, we recently reported that football star Terrell Owens pays $5,000 a month in support of one child. In other words, Ted Rollins pays less than one-fifth what Terrell Owens pays--for twice as many children. Owens is a rich fellow, by most standards, but it's doubtful his net worth even approaches that of Ted Rollins.

Did Ted Rollins get a sweet deal in Alabama? You be the judge. Is this a sensitive topic for the CEO? Well, he threatened to sue me last week because of my reporting on Rollins v. Rollins.

How did Ted Rollins, who regularly flies around the country on private jets, manage to get a support judgment that might be expected for a janitor, a school teacher, or a journalist? We are continuing to investigate that question. But one answer appears to rest with a CS-41 form, an Alabama child-support document that is signed under penalty of perjury. (See the front and back of the Alabama CS-41 form below, followed by Ted Rollins' CS-41.)

Ted Rollins stated under oath that his income was $4,166.67 a month, from employment at Reynolds Mortgage and Investment Co. of Brentwood, Tennessee. That comes to $50,000.04 per year--and Rollins listed that as his only income.

The CS-41 is dated April 27, 2005, and published reports show that Campus Crest Communities already had started at that point, with Rollins as CEO. The South Carolina court found that Rollins was president of St. James Capital LLC, an investment firm he founded with his cousin--R. Randall Rollins, chairman of Rollins Inc. in Atlanta. The South Carolina judge found that the Rollins family is "extremely wealthy."

Crescent Center

When Rollins v. Rollins was moved to Alabama, Ted Rollins suddenly no longer was involved with St. James Capital. You read that correctly: When his divorce case commenced in South Carolina, where jurisdiction clearly rested, Ted Rollins was president of St. James Capital. When the case unlawfully shifted to Alabama, he suddenly had no ties to St. James Capital. How intriguing! How convenient!

What happened to Ted Rollins' interest in that company, plus his interest in Campus Crest and other ventures? They seemingly vanished when Rollins v. Rollins took center stage in Shelby County, Alabama.

And that's not all. Ted Rollins was a major player behind the Crescent Center, a development in Greenville, South Carolina, that offers 750,000 square feet of manufacturing, distribution, and office space. Rollins derived no income from that sizable project?

Based on his CS-41 form, Ted Rollins appears to be a regular working stiff, a guy making a relatively paltry sum of 50 grand a year. But the CS-41 goes beyond "salary," requiring a declaration regarding many forms of income--the kind that wealthy people, such as Ted Rollins, often have. The instructions are found on the back side of the CS-41, under the title "Examples Of Income That Must Be Declared In Your Gross Monthly Income." It's pretty hard to miss. Here is what must be declared:

EXAMPLES OF INCOME THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN YOUR GROSS MONTHLY INCOME  

1. Employment Income--shall include, but not be limited to, salary, wages, bonuses, commissions, severance pay, worker’s compensation, pension income, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and Social Security benefits.

2. Self–Employment Income--shall include, but not be limited to, income from self-employment, rent, royalties, proprietorship of a business, or joint ownership of a partnership or closely held corporation. “Gross income” means gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce this income.

3. Other Employment-Related Income--shall include, but not be limited to, the average monthly value of any expense reimbursements or in-kind payments received in the course of employment that are significant and reduce personal living expenses, such as a furnished automobile, a clothing allowance, and a housing allowance.

4. Other Non-Employment Related Income--shall include, but not be limited to, dividends, interest, annuities, capital gains, gifts, prizes, and pre-existing periodic alimony.

Ted Rollins is from an "extremely wealthy" family, but he had none of these sources of income, only $50,000 from a mortgage company in Tennessee? Does this "strain credulity"?

The bottom line is this: Public documents show that someone administered a colossal cheat job to Sherry Carroll Rollins and her daughters. Because of that, the Rollins household in Alabama now qualifies for government assistance, funded by taxpayers.

The story of corruption connected to Rollins v. Rollins goes beyond one family, two states, two courtrooms and a series of judges. Someone wanted to make sure that Ted Rollins did not have to pay a reasonable sum for the support of his ex wife and children. Someone wanted to make sure that Sherry Carroll Rollins did not receive a share of the "marital assets," to which she was entitled under the law.

As a result, taxpayers are making up a tiny portion of the difference, in the form of food stamps. This helps ensure that Sherry Rollins and her daughters can make it through the month with something to eat. Does this situation trouble Ted Rollins? We've sent him questions in writing, but he has not responded--other than to threaten me with a lawsuit.

Moral of the story? Corruption in Shelby County, Alabama, is not just my problem or Sherry Rollins' problem. It's everyone's problem.


Alabama CS-41 Form (Front and Back)


Rollins CS-41 Form

21 comments:

Max Shelby said...

Well, this certainly will help his mood towards you.
Outstanding re-sting LS!

legalschnauzer said...

Max:

LOL

The good news is that I'm only getting started on the Rollins v. Rollins story, with its genesis in Shelby County, Alabama. Much more to come.

Anonymous said...

OH DEAR GUSSY.. It sure has been nice knowing you.!! I cant wait to see what Robby has to say! I bet Teddy Bear is crapping bugs about right now when he reads this. Now this is evil. Why is it when people divorce SOME use their children to get at the other person. If I were in his position and had his money my children would want for nothing. Regardless how I felt about the EX. If she suffers the children suffer. That is not right . They did not ask to be here. They should not be punished.
I bet the other family can relax their rectal muscles...you have not been on them too much lately.. Very interesting story and if I used the exterminator service I would cancel today! I sure would like to hear the reason for the divorce!

Robby Scott Hill said...

And the lawyers accuse me of not meeting my financial responsibilities :)

jeffrey spruill said...

After reading this particular blog I was left wondering:"What kind of man would do something like that to his own children?"

Andrea in Indiana said...

He looks old, I'm super jealous of his monthly insurance premium contribution. What a douche!

Anonymous said...

Dear Author-

So, let me follow your logic here...my parents are wealthy, therefore I am wealthy? That's a big assumption.

If you have information that proves the subject lied about his income to the court, you should present it and he should be charged with perjury. But I guess that you are more qualified to assess someone's wealth rather than a judge.

Also, it seems according to your article, that the amount of child support was assessed before the company's IPO. Do you know anything about business? Do you think the subject took the $380 million from the IPO and put it in his back pocket? His current wealth is probably in the form of stock.

Oh, what about the other side of this equation: the mother? Why doesn't your story mention were she works and her income? Let me guess: she doesn't work? Where's her accountability for not providing for her children?

Your obsession with this subject is bizarre. Many readers, like me, are forced to wonder: do you have a "special" relationship with the mother?

-GA

legalschnauzer said...

Anon/GA:

A few responses:

* You refer to my "logic" regarding Mr. Rollins' wealth. That was the logic of a South Carolina judge. It's straight from his opinion, which was based on sworn court testimony.

* Yes, the judgment came before the Campus Crest IPO, and I never stated otherwise. But I did state that Campus Crest existed at the time of the judgment, as did St. James Capital, and the Crescent Center. Mr. Rollins derived no income from these sources? You believe that?

* By the way, divorce judgments often are modified when an individual's financial circumstances have changed. I asked Mr. Rollins, in writing, if he thought his ex wife and children merit enhanced support in the wake of his company's IPO. He refused to answer the question.

* If you don't think Ted Rollins is wealthy, why don't you drive by his house in Greenville, SC, and check it out? I probably can get the address for you. You also can check out his multiple private jet craft--I think he has three, or at least the use of three. How many dudes making $50,000 a year have access to three private jets?

* Regarding perjury, a SC judge said multiple times in his rulings that Mr. Rollins' claims regarding his income did not match his lifestyle. That doesn't prove perjury, of course. But it does mean a judge didn't seem to be buying what Mr. Rollins was selling. Mr. Rollins got away from that judge by having his case moved to Alabama. Voila!

* As for my "obsession" with this case, you must be new to my blog. If you had done a little research, you would know that I live in Shelby County, AL, and started my blog after being cheated in circuit court here. That's the same court where Sherry Rollins was cheated. A major part of this blog's mission is to expose corruption in that court, plus other cases of misconduct that I become aware of. That explains my interest in the Rollins case; nothing bizarre about it. A little research also would have told you that I have written extensively about other victims of corruption in divorce courts, including Angela Turner Drees. Oh, I guess I'm having an affair with her? That would be news to me--and I'm sure to her.

Beyond divorce cases, I've probably written more than any other journalist about the political prosecutions of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor. I guess I have some special "relationship" with them?

A pretty pathetic effort on your part.

* If you want to learn more about Sherry Rollins' work experience since her divorce, I would be more than happy to get you in touch with her. Contact me at (205) 991-7438 or rshuler3156@gmail.com

* If you want to know more about the relationship both my wife and I have with Sherry Rollins, contact me at (205) 991-7438. Either my wife or I would be glad to fill you in. Ms. Rollins, I feel certain, would be glad to talk with you about that, too.

We look forward to hearing from you.

melissa1125 said...

@legalschnauzer -- epic WIN! lolz...

Matt Osborne said...

Excellent work here. You'll be accused of tawdriness, of course, because the politics of Alabama are supposed to have a certain politesse, insert eyeroll.

jeffrey spruill said...

Not only is this Ted Rollins one twisted guy-projecting his pain onto his wife using his own children-his supporters seem to be channeling the thoughts of Lester Burnham.(American Beauty)

Anonymous said...

Roger
Doesn't taxpayer money support you as well? Those children are being cared for. Could the amount of the reported monthly support afford them to live in mountain brook? You should really know all there is to know about a topic before you report.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon:

What kind of government assistance am I on?

Anonymous said...

Why is it the daily ko's don't seem to think enough of you you to publish your stories without huge criticism? Why do you block certain responses to your blog? fair journalism? I think not.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon:

I've published 742 diaries at Daily Kos, with more than 100 followers and almost 20,000 recommends. The facts show that a whole lot of people support my work there. The few who don't are mostly lawyers who resent someone telling the truth about their profession.

By the way, I posted a diary at Kos on Sept. 29 about Ted Rollins' threat to sue me. It drew 176 comments, and my estimate is that about 150-155 were either supportive or non-critical. I'm afraid you aren't dealing in facts.

Aside from that, I don't mind having critics. A journalist who doesn't have critics probably isn't doing serious work.

I moderate comments, as many bloggers do, in order to eliminate spam and content that is vulgar, threatening, inaccurate, or unintelligible.

Have you had a comment blocked? Resend it, and I'll check it out. I almost always publish comments by people who have the courage to comment under their real names.

By the way, moderation of comments has nothing to do with journalism, fair or otherwise. Journalism involves researching, interviewing, writing, editing. A blogger has no obligation to allow comments at all. I do it because I think it's worthwhile, and I think thoughtful comments add to the blog, whether they are supportive of me or not. I know from experience that newspapers and magazines publish only a fraction of the letters they receive.

I am responsible for all content here--and I'm not going to allow material that falls into the categories noted above. That's my call to make because it's my blog.

If you are implying that I don't allow critical comments, you are wrong. Just look at the comments in this thread. Several, including yours, are critical.

So what's your beef?

legalschnauzer said...

LS readers might be interested to know that this post has been picked up on the daily blog roundup at Crooks & Liars. Here is the link:

http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/mikes-blog-round-45

It also is on the front page at The Public Record:

http://pubrecord.org/

Spencer Dunbar said...

I read your blog when I see an interesting link for it on C&L. Love it. Plus, I'm on my second schnauzer. Best breed- loads of admirable qualities and I see them here-thanks

Anonymous said...

You really should hide his Social Security number on the document..

Redeye said...

Way to go LS! Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Perjury in divorce court? What a laugh! The one with the most money (to hire the sleaziest divorce lawyer) wins. Period.

Anonymous said...

I will be happy when you change post. I cant stand looking at that ugly face and those glasses need a nose and a fake mustache. Does anyone wear those round things anymore.. Looking forward to a new post.