YouTube Divorcee's 'Victory' Explained

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," July 23, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: The video is a YouTube sensation, more than three million hits. Tricia Walsh goes on a taped tirade about her estranged husband, Philip, and then posts it for the world to see. And boy, the world did watch.


TRICIA WALSH: This is my home, or was my home, which I'm being evicted from in 2008, can you believe? Husband has no grounds for divorce, and he's trying to evict me for $750,000.

I can't believe that I was with a man who didn't sleep with me and I believed it was high blood pressure.

I'm going to be a warrior. I'm trying to be a warrior. Maybe I'll win.


VAN SUSTEREN: Now, the angry former actress took on her Broadway mogul husband. Her husband took her to court. And now a judge has made a decision. Philip Smith has been granted a divorce. The judge says Tricia's YouTube tape was a calculating and callous attempt to embarrassing her husband into settling their divorce. The couple's pre-nuptial agreement has been ruled valid. She gets no more than the amount agreed upon before they both said "I do," And Tricia Walsh will now receive $750,000.

Tricia Walsh said this about the judge's decision.


WALSH: Thank you all for coming. I appreciate your interest in my story and your understanding in allowing me a day to reflect on my victory in court on Monday. And yes, I said "victory." Today I am proud to say that despite the abuse of influence by Philip Smith and the Schubert Organization and their ongoing efforts to bring me down, I will not be bullied. And I repeat, I will not be bullied, coerced, or anything!

(INAUDIBLE) have inspired me to regain control of my life and my career, and in the process, bring to the attention of the world the plight of women in divorce, a plight that certainly did not start with me, but hopefully, with the kind of attention you've allowed me to bring to it, maybe some day will subside.

And to make sure that fair reporting comes out of New York today, this is being recorded and will go up on my site on YouTube later this afternoon, so the whole world can hear my truth and can hear that I have been bullied, coerced, and no human being would ever want to go through what I have been through in the last year, but particularly since April. And that a human being such as I was going to be thrown on the street penniless in April and took to YouTube is a story in itself, and it should never, ever have happened.

My husband is a wealthy man. I gave him the best years of my life, and he should do the decent thing.


VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us live is Joe McCaffery, Tricia Walsh's attorney. Welcome, Joe. And Joe, how long had they been married? What year did they get married?

JOE MCCAFFERY, TRICIA WALSH'S ATTORNEY: It was approximately 1999, Greta.

Watch Greta's interview

VAN SUSTEREN: So a marriage of about nine years, if my math is about right. Did she work during the marriage?

MCCAFFERY: No. Well, she did things like be a social secretary for her husband. She attended Broadway shows and openings. And she basically scheduled all those events. And she accompanied him to those events, and that's what she did.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, they signed a pre-nuptial agreement, and at least as I understand it, she gets $750,000 -- this was the pre- marriage agreement -- and would have to leave the apartment. She now claims that she had a victory. What is her victory? Because I take it that the -- I mean, the agreement has been enforced.

MCCAFFERY: That's correct. The victory is threefold. One is that she maintained a roof over her head. The second is that she gets -- she gained financial independence, which is something she gave up when she was with Mr. Smith. The third thing is that she championed, as she said, the cause of all women across the world. She's retained her right to pursue the appeal. She's going to get the $750,000. And I believe it's a victory.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I don't mean to split hairs with you, but she would have gotten $750,000 without paying the costs of court, the anxiety of it, paying legal fees, everything else. I mean, I'm having a hard time understanding how she -- I know she rolled the dice, hoping to get a better deal, but I'm having a hard time understanding how she came out ahead. But so be it. She calls it a victory.

All right. Now, she says she's been through a lot and that she has -- abuse of influence has been ongoing to bring her down. What -- what is that?

MCCAFFERY: Well, there's been some interference with her creative endeavors, with her business relationships. Those are intentional. They've been done by Mr. Smith. We even have that happening today by the Schubert Organization, members of the Schubert Organization, and I'm calling on Mr. Shoenfeld (ph) and Mr. Smith to use their authority and their power to ensure that these things stop. They will stop...

VAN SUSTEREN: What things, though? What -- I mean, I'm having a -- you know, explain to me -- it's, like -- I know she's throwing -- I know she's very unhappy, but exactly what it is does she say that he did in terms of this abuse of influence?

MCCAFFERY: Well, in prior (INAUDIBLE) of the marriage -- years of the marriage, Mr. Smith used his influence to basically kibosh or stop her creative plays. These were things that were in production and treatments (ph) to play (ph) addictions (ph) and other plays. And the bottom line is, is that Mr. Smith used his influence to basically quash her career and her creative endeavors while she was married to him. It's a question of putting her down and maintaining the financial stranglehold on her.

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't mean to put you on the spot, but what do you think about her going on YouTube? I know you're her lawyer, but your thought. Did it help you or hurt you?

MCCAFFERY: I think it was a fantastic decision. She was going to get thrown out of the house, penniless, homeless and destitute, and...

VAN SUSTEREN: No, she wasn't. She had the agreement.

MCCAFFERY: No. She would have -- she would have been paid $50,000 upon vacating the apartment back in October or roughly November. Mr. Smith could have waited as long as he wanted to pay that $700,000. She was $45,000 in debt at the time. She would have been thrown out. She had no place to go, no money to pay any lawyers and no resources like Mr. Smith had.

VAN SUSTEREN: I guess, in the end, nobody wins in divorce on either side, but that -- it's never very pretty. Joe, thank you.

MCCAFFERY: Greta, thank you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2008 ASC LLC (, which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and ASC LLC's copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.