Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Here Is How The Wealthy Rollins Family Approaches "Negotiations" On A Prenuptial Agreement

What is it like to negotiate a prenuptial agreement when you are about to marry into one of the wealthiest families in the United States?

If you are marrying into the Rollins family--the folks behind Orkin Pest Control, Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment, RPC Inc., and other profitable enterprises--you don't negotiate it. You receive a massive document at the last moment, and then have a family lawyer more or less try to force it down your throat. If you refuse to sign it, and the wedding goes ahead anyway, brace yourself in the event of a divorce; the Rollins family will gather its considerable resources and find a judge who will cheat you in ways that are almost beyond comprehension.

That's the experience of Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins, who was a Rollins spouse for about 10 years. Her divorce was finalized in Shelby County, Alabama, in 2005, but the fallout continues for Ms. Rollins and the two daughters she had with Ted Rollins. The courtroom cheat job administered by Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson was so horrific that Ms. Rollins and her girls wound up on food stamps--even though Ted Rollins owns multiple private jets and is CEO of a company, Campus Crest Communities, that completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in 2010.

Why were members of the Rollins family willing to resort to criminal behavior to gain the upper hand in an Alabama divorce case? Evidence strongly suggests it's because Ted Rollins chose to marry Sherry Carroll without a prenuptial agreement--and that meant his inheritance and income from various business interests, many of which involve other family members, were at risk in the event of a divorce.

Was Sherry Carroll adamantly opposed to a prenuptial agreement, in general? The answer appears to be no. After all, prenups have become a common part of the marital experience, even in cases where major family wealth is not involved. Many Web sites state that prenups are a good idea for all kinds of couples, and they should be negotiated when both parties have proper representation and time to consider all of the provisions.

Is that how the Rollins family approached the subject with Sherry Carroll? Not exactly. She was living in Birmingham when she met Ted Rollins via a business associate who had helped decorate a Marriott hotel that the Rollins family had built. As the relationship became serious, Ms. Carroll and her youngest son, Zac, lived for a while with Rollins in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he ran an investment company.

When they decided to get married, the ceremony was to be in Alabama. The night before they were to head South, a prenup suddenly appeared. Here is how Sherry Carroll Rollins described it in an e-mail to me a few months ago:

The night before I left to go to my wedding with [Ted]; the fax machine began spitting out pages of a prenup for me to sign. In it, it stated that Ted could choose any hospital for me and even against my own will. I went to him with the [stuff] from his lawyer, threw it in his face, and told him I was going back to Charlottesville and started getting in the car to go. He came out, tore up the pages, and threw them all over. He said, "[Screw] a prenup; I want to marry you, and this is stupid." So I never signed anything.

The proposed prenup was about 70 pages long, Ms. Rollins says now. Frank Bredimus, a lawyer in Leesburg, Virginia, prepared the document, and Ms. Rollins later would learn that Bredimus and her husband had an unusually close relationship. In fact, Bredimus came to Shelby County to testify falsely that he and Ms. Rollins had an affair during the course of her marriage. Ms. Rollins provided more details about the prenup issue in a recent e-mail to me:

You might be interested to know that the night before we left to go to Alabama to get married and then onto Lake Como, Italy, the fax machine went crazy and around 70 pages were spit out of it. I picked them up before Ted came home; I had never been so shocked; it was a prenup written by his best friend Frank Bredimus, the one who lives in Leesburg, Va., on a farm [that] Ted purchased for him. The most disturbing thing of the few pages I read was that [Ted] would be able to put me in any health care institution or hospital of his choice without my permission. He was to be my power of attorney over all decisions in my future life. 
I threw the papers at him when he came home; I was not packed and I told him the whole thing was off. I stayed up most of the night, trying to figure out what he thought I was. I told him that if he wanted to be my warden from now on, that I was leaving the next day and going back to Charlottesville and taking Zac with me and opening up my design office again. . . . He begged, he pleaded and he tore up the prenup completely; he said it was all Frank's idea. I never heard anything about it again. I guarantee you that is why they spent so much money screwing me over in two states; Ted's inheritance was at stake and St. James Capital, as well.

Under the circumstances, it's easy to understand why Sherry Carroll refused to sign a prenuptial agreement. Here is perhaps the bigger question now: Why did Ted Rollins go ahead with the wedding anyway?

We will address that question in upcoming posts.


Anonymous said...

So Ted bought Bredimus a home hmmm. Then Bredimus testifys that he had an affair with Sherry. Looks to be that the affair was between good ol Ted and Bredimus. Do you have a photo of Bredimus LS?

Anonymous said...

Discredit and bleed them poor! His sights were on someone other than Sherry. That prenup was a last effort to provide for his future protection if his real motives were revealed. But why? In most states a spouse doesn't need the permission of the other to hospitalize them if there is cause. Right? Didn't you say a neighbor reported the possibility of abuse to CPS? Wonder what was in the works had sherry reported it?

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't believe all that Roger, it's so mad up. I promise you Mr. Rollins isn't the monster you are portraying. The crazy woman is lazy and spends her child support carelessly, and refuses to work, would rather spend her time running down her kids father.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 11:17--

You make a number of interesting points. The person who reported the alleged sexual abuse was an unknown citizen. It might have been a neighbor, but we don't know. Could have been someone at school. Those records are kept under wraps, it seems.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 10:53--

You can check out a photo of Mr. Bredimus at the following Web address:


Spasmoda said...

Ted Rollins bought another man a farm?

Gee, that doesn't sound strange.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 11:24--

Everything that Sherry Rollins has told me has checked out via public records. It's not a matter of anyone portraying Ted Rollins as a "monster." Public records tell the story. Ted Rollins has been given numerous opportunities to answer question in interviews, and he has refused. Why is that?

Public records show that he beat his stepson, was investigated for child sexual abuse, failed to pay child support for almost three years, had a bench warrant for his arrest, lied on a child support document, unlawfully got a divorce case moved from one state to another . . . and the list goes on. That's public record--neither you nor Mr. Rollins apparently have an answer for those documents.

Anonymous said...

Interesting you tube clip and relevant.... Pull up "kidnapping in Maryland (MD) part I" it's about 15 minutes but will give you some insight as to what Rollins may have had planned for Sherry. This is quite a prevelant tactic used on women these days.

TLR said...

Any chance Ms. Rollins still has a copy of the prenup? Would love to see what is in a 70-page prenup.

legalschnauzer said...

Good question, TLR. Sounds like she tore her copy up. I will check. Perhaps Mr. Bredimus can give us a copy.

Anonymous said...

The prenup comes via fax the night before the wedding, and Ms. Rollins is expected to sign without any representation?

That sounds fair, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Now you are beginning to get to it! Keep digging and reporting please!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:24, you are an fn idiot. Tickled Teds testicles lately?

Anonymous said...

Did this family ever attend counciling? As a whole or individually? Mainly Sherry? He definitely had a plan for her.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 12:22--

Yes, they were ordered to attend counseling at Duke University, as part of the investigation on the citizen complaint of child sexual abuse.

Anonymous said...

The provisions in the proposed prenup sound to me like the Rollins family planned to eventually have Ted's wife institutionalized.

I'm guessing the plan was to drive her a little bit nuts and then have her shacked up in a psych ward as wholly nuts.

legalschnauzer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 12:33--

That's how the provisions sound to me, too. Can't think of any other reason to want that sort of control over her health care.

Anonymous said...

It should strike everyone as odd that they were ordered to counciling at Duke, Ted was never found guilty, yet the councilor gave sherry a book on the relationship between her son and husband. Don't you people see that Duke helped cover it up? Why in the hell should her son come forward when nobody was helping him? All they will do is tag him as nuts (what he probably thinks). These sick twisted pos's best watch out because the more this is done to people and children, the better chance the public will find out what is really being done to them. I can't wait to see what retaliation will look like on these judges and lawyers etc. when people get fed up with this crap!

Anonymous said...

What does "unusually close relationship" mean?

Does Ms. Rollins think her husband and Frank Bredimus were gay lovers?

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 1:03--

Ms. Rollins would have to answer your question in a direct way.

My impression is that she does not have hard proof of a gay relationship, but she suspects something unusual was going on between Mr. Bredimus and Mr. Rollins.

My understanding is that Mr. Bredimus has a farm that is paid for by Rollins and no longer has to practice law, to speak of. Pretty sweet gig.

I further understand that 1-2 Virginia lawyers were involved in the Rollins divorce case here in Alabama. What was the purpose of that? John Durward, of Birmingham, was Ted Rollins' main lawyer.

I'm not sure, but Frank Bredimus apparently did a serious hatchet job on Sherry Rollins, and Judge Crowson let him get away with it. I'm not sure Ms. Rollins even was allowed to counter the Bredimus testimony.

My understanding is that Mr. Bredimus had gone through an extremely ugly divorce of his own.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 12:58--

I agree that Duke University is complicit in a cover up. Sherry Rollins and her son probably should have a massive federal lawsuit against the university for being involved in such a scam. Statute of limitations might be a problem in prevailing on a civil case, but just bringing the case would cause massive embarrassment for the esteemed Duke University. As a private institution, Duke would not be protected by state immunity.

I very much would like to interview the Duke psych guy, if he is still around.

There is no criminal statute of limitations on child sexual abuse in North Carolina, and Ms. Rollins and her son might have grounds to include Duke in a criminal conspiracy. There is no doubt that Ted Rollins could still be prosecuted, along with anyone else who helped cover up the crime.

The Duke psychologist obviously believed Ted Rollins had sexually molested his stepson. Why else give Ms. Rollins the book? But he had a duty under the law to report his findings to authorities. That he didn't is a clear violation of North Carolian law.

Health-care, law enforcement and court officials had the same duty, and they also violated the law.

The system completely failed Ms. Rollins and her son, and the appropriate individuals and entities should be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum
All In One

together now singin
we them chorus
all hollerin wailin almighty

self righteous indignation
hoopin and howlin
no recognition faded black

silent broken egos
night violently vacuumed
beaming moons remembering mornings

stars scattered haunting
memories exploded yesterdays
interrupted lights flickering tomorrows

fathers mothers forgiven
hypnotized brainwashed propagandized
questioning realities acted Hollywood

apartheid empire building
speaking in tongues
anchored systems fanaticism religions

consumerism worshiping credit
debt dusty digits
judicial mendacity colonizes US!

legalschnauzer said...

Not quite sure what to make of the above poem. Kind of interesting, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Where is the public record of sexual abuse?

Where is Bredimus' testimony of an affair?
C'mon, sniff it out schnauzer.

Your a twit.

legalschnauzer said...

Always enjoy a comment from a name caller who is too big a coward to post by his real name. Don't usually run that stuff or respond to it, but I will in this case.

A witness who was in the courtroom stated that Bredimus testified, falsely, regarding an affair. That's what I reported.

A witness who was directly involved stated that Ted Rollins was investigated for possible child sexual abuse and provided extensive details about the matter. That's what I reported. Records of the investigation exist, by the way; they just are not routinely made public.

As someone who wrote "your a twit," maybe your time could be best used by attempting to learn basic grammar.

Anonymous said...

Your a fine one to tell someone how best to use their time.
So, if I claimed to be a witness you would take my word for it and blog about it? With no hard evidence?

Again, your a twit

legalschnauzer said...

Still a coward, I see. Still don't know grammar.

If you claim to be a witness, I'm going to interview you to see if you know what you are talking about. I'm going to check public documents to see if they support what you say. If you have credibility, as Sherry Rollins does, then we move forward.

Want to sit down for an interview? Sherry Rollins has sat for multiple interviews, on camera. You want to do that? Here is your opportunity.

Anonymous said...

the poem LS is about our so called money actually as nothing other than digits, called "dust" in referring to the pay we got from the so called banks ~ banks got all our wealth and we got dust.

The judicial in the US is referred to by the people revolting against the US dictatorial gulag of biometric digital dust, as the colonizers for the "elite." In other words the top .01% have a judicial dictatorial faction which puts humans in jail and also moves criminals next door, on it goes with losing jobs, harassed when reporting the journalistic truth.

The poem is about how we are almost all, singing in a choir and egos are broken, it is dark in America and we pretend it is not.

But, as with all historical realities, time turns the big wheel and spin it does, and with any luck at all the consumerism sold as though a god to the US, can be changed as we wake from the toxic shock of politics and not law as controlling.

Religions are fanatical and governing such weirdness ~ Jewish "lawyers" are speaking Yiddish with other Jews and the "Mormons" are evidently the enemy now, but then who the hell knows.

Hollywood is no longer in control of our past, the parents raised on the movies were not able to be other than crazy in so many ways, must forgive the first line of being experimented on.

Now with the accelerated experimentation and of course the system of incarceration as our new order of terrorizing US back into the dark ages ...

~Power of change happens when we choose to believe in our own powers of changing the way we decide how to see the real imagination and not Hollywood's anymore.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for your insights. Well done.

Anonymous said...

They were a research project for Duke! Figure out why and you win the prize!

Anonymous said...

LS, you're not a twit btw ...


legalschnauzer said...

Thanks, rk.

Twit is such a "common" term. I prefer "provocateur" or even "s--t stirrer."