A Brooklyn father, who graduated from Yale and was once a Fullbright scholar, won’t see a cent of his ex-wife’s $50million tobacco fortune after he tapped her phone with cheap software.
Crocker Coulson, 53, bugged ex-wife’s, 53-year-old Anne Resnik, phone with $50 software so that he could record private meetings she had with a therapist and her lawyer so that he could get the upper hand in their divorce proceedings.
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine asserted that the man forfeited any claim to Resnik’s fortune in a ‘drastic’ ruling because of the man’s ‘unprecedented, contumacious conduct.’
‘The readily available and sophisticated spyware available in this Internet Age to a spouse intent on wielding power over another spouse presents a new tool of control,’ explained the judge in a 49-page decision, according to the New York Post.
Crocker Coulson, 53, bugged ex-wife’s, 53-year-old Anne Resnik, phone with $50 software
‘The court finds that these victims must be protected by the imposition of the strictest penalties possible.’
The daughter of Frank Resnik, CEO of Philip Morris, Anne Resnik married Coulson in 2008 and the pair have eight-year-old twins.
The daughter of Frank Resnik (pictured), CEO of Philip Morris, Anne Resnik married Coulson in 2008 and the pair have eight-year-old twins
Coulson receives zero alimony and gets none of the couple’s assets following the decision from the judge. He can still seek child support once the decision of custody is handled.
And while celebrity lawyer Raoul Felder would not disclose how much Resnik was worth, he did mention that her net worth was ‘significant.’
‘The court is mindful that [Coulson] probably never contemplated that his initial investment of approximately $50 of spyware would start him on this path or have such dire consequences for his financial future,’ the judge stated.
‘However [his] conduct in this litigation both shocks the consciousness of the court and offends all semblance of judicial integrity.’
While sorting through Coulson’s PayPal account in 2015, Felder stumbled upon a $50 charge for OwnSpy software.
According to the ruling, the app’s ‘AudioSpy feature essentially allowed [Coulson] to use [his wife’s] iPhone as a remote microphone so he could ‘listen in’ to whatever conversations were taking place int eh vicinity of [her] iPhone.’
But during divorce proceedings, Coulson downloaded OwnSpy software so that he could listen to Resnik talk to her lawyer, therapist and friends
The investment consultant would ‘listen in’ to his wife’s iPhone between six and 59 times a day in 2014, able to ‘unlawfully gain information about [his wife’s] litigation strategy.’
Coulson was also privy to private conversations between Resnik and her therapist and friends.
He was able to get access to almost every aspect of his wife’s life, contacts, GPS location and more.
When Resnik got a judge ordered retrieval of the software – to be done by the sheriff – Coulson destroyed the evidence because he saw the email. The father-of-two also faces jail time for destroying the evidence
Citing these details, Felder claimed that Coulson’s digging ‘not only put his thumb on the scales of justice, he pressed down with his entire hand.’
Sunshine shared the sentiment, adding that the man ‘attempted to ‘hack’ this litigation and to control it using knowledge gained by ‘listening in’ on [his wife’s] attorney-client privileged consultations and by reading her privileged communications.’
He added, that Coulson ‘repeatedly and purposefully violated [his wife’s] attorney-client privilege in the most intrusive way.’
Coulson was able to destroy evidence when he was made aware of his wife’s request that was approved for a sheriff to seize the software.
The unrepentant man also invoked his Fifth Amendment right and laughed ‘approximately 58 times,’ the ruling states.
‘We’re gratified by the result but there’s a frightening future ahead if this is what can be accomplished with $50,’ Felder said.
The father-of-two also faces jail time for destroying the evidence.
Nathaniel Marmur, his recently attained lawyer, claimed: ‘The court’s finding that he invaded his wife’s attorney-client privilege is flatly contradicted by the well-supported conclusion of both parties’ experts, and we are confident that the appellate court will correct this mischaracterization of the facts.’