The saga surrounding Aaron Hernandez, the New England Patriots star turned convicted murderer, continues to captivate the public, even after his death. Following his suicide in 2017, a trust fund was established for his daughter, Avielle Hernandez. However, recent legal battles have brought to light questions about the management of these funds and, specifically, whether Aaron Hernandez’s fiancée, Shayanna Jenkins-Hernandez, personally benefited financially. This article delves into the details of the trust fund dispute, examining the expenditures and allegations that have fueled the controversy surrounding the question: Did Shayanna Jenkins Get Any Money from the Aaron Hernandez estate?
The Dance Lesson Dispute and Sparked Questions
The current legal contention ignited with a seemingly minor issue: a $10,697 bill for Avielle’s dance lessons. Shayanna Jenkins-Hernandez, Avielle’s mother and Aaron Hernandez’s former fiancée, requested that the court-appointed trustee, attorney David Schwartz, pay the bill from Avielle’s trust fund. This request, however, was denied, setting off a chain of events that exposed deeper concerns about financial management.
Schwartz’s refusal was based on his understanding that Jenkins-Hernandez was already receiving a substantial sum – upwards of $150,000 annually – from Aaron Hernandez’s NFL pension and Social Security benefits. These funds, he argued, were intended to cover Avielle’s daily expenses, making the additional request for dance lessons seem unnecessary, if not inappropriate, to be drawn from the trust.
Scrutinizing the Spending: Where Did the Money Go?
To justify his denial and further investigate the financial situation, Trustee Schwartz reviewed Shayanna Jenkins-Hernandez’s spending habits. What he discovered raised serious questions about whether the funds meant for Avielle’s well-being were being used appropriately. The expenditure reports revealed significant amounts spent in categories that seemed questionable in relation to a child’s needs.
The documents showed:
- $36,858 on clothing, including maternity wear, despite the fact that these funds were supposed to be solely for Avielle’s benefit.
- $39,347 on home goods, a broad category that lacked specific details justifying how these purchases directly benefited Avielle.
- $25,577 on online shopping, raising concerns about the nature and necessity of these online purchases.
- $11,792 in “self care,” encompassing gym fees and salon visits for hair and nails. This category particularly sparked debate as it appeared to directly benefit Jenkins-Hernandez rather than her daughter.
Robert O’Regan, the attorney representing Schwartz in this legal battle, voiced his concerns directly: “There is reason to question whether the expenditures were for Avielle’s benefit… We’re talking about over the top or otherwise unrelated expenses to Avielle.” The core of the dispute was not about denying Avielle a comfortable life, but about ensuring that the funds were genuinely used for her benefit and not for the personal enrichment of her mother.
The Battle for Control: Trustee vs. Conservator
The disagreement over the dance lessons and the subsequent revelations about spending patterns escalated into a larger conflict over control of the funds. Jenkins-Hernandez, in response to Schwartz’s refusal to pay the dance bill, petitioned a Bristol County probate judge to remove him as trustee. Her argument centered on the idea that Schwartz was hindering Avielle’s access to activities she enjoyed.
Jenkins-Hernandez maintained that all her spending was done with the “singular focus” of raising and providing a stable life for her children. She insisted that no funds had been misused and that the trust fund should be accessible to her when needed for Avielle’s upbringing. Her lawyer, Stephen Withers, dismissed the controversy as “much ado about nothing,” asserting that accusations of inappropriate spending were “absolutely false.”
However, Schwartz stood firm in his position, alleging that Jenkins-Hernandez had violated the terms of her role as conservator. He countered by requesting her removal from this position. If successful, a new conservator would be appointed to manage Hernandez’s pension and Social Security payments, effectively taking financial control away from Jenkins-Hernandez and ensuring stricter oversight of how these funds are spent for Avielle’s benefit.
The Shadow of Aaron Hernandez and Financial Realities
The backdrop to this financial dispute is the tragic and complex story of Aaron Hernandez. His fall from NFL stardom to convicted murderer and eventual suicide is a well-documented and shocking narrative. While Jenkins-Hernandez testified for the prosecution during his murder trial, she has consistently maintained his innocence.
Despite the settlements from Hernandez’s estate, including the sale of their mansion, Jenkins-Hernandez’s financial situation is not without complexity. Court documents revealed that Avielle had previously received public assistance, highlighting the shift from a life of NFL wealth to a more precarious financial reality after Hernandez’s downfall. While the trust, administered by Schwartz, covers housing and school tuition, the pension and Social Security are meant for daily expenses, creating a layered system of financial support for Avielle.
Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez with Shayanna Jenkins-Hernandez in court. The question of fund management arises amidst the legacy of his estate.
Adding to the trustee’s concerns were further expenditures that appeared questionable. Schwartz noted $4,800 spent at Harrods Department Store and nearly $30,000 in ATM withdrawals, alongside substantial bank charges, mostly from overdraft fees. These financial behaviors further fueled the trustee’s doubt about whether the funds were being managed responsibly and in Avielle’s best interest. The $39,655 listed for “education” also raised eyebrows, particularly the $3,720 to Bay Path University, given that Avielle was not of college age, and her school expenses were already covered by the trust. Another cryptic expense of $12,830 labeled “Ask My Accountant” remained unexplained, despite requests for clarification.
Entitlement or Mismanagement? Perspectives on the Spending
While not questioning Jenkins-Hernandez’s love for her daughter, O’Regan, representing the trustee, suggested a possible sense of entitlement might be influencing her spending. He articulated that after the tumultuous experience with Aaron Hernandez, and the subsequent inheritance, Jenkins-Hernandez might have developed a perception that she had the freedom to spend the money as she saw fit. He noted, “If you’re someone like Shayanna… you might think you get to spend this money any way you want. Nobody told her she can’t or she’s not listening.”
Jenkins-Hernandez’s lawyer maintained that the accountings were “appropriate” and that any questions could be “easily answered.” He reiterated that her primary focus was Avielle’s well-being. However, the trustee’s concerns and the detailed expenditure reports paint a picture of financial management that is, at the very least, open to interpretation and legal scrutiny.
The Unresolved Question and Future Control
As of the latest reports, the motions from both sides remain pending, and the case has been proposed to be moved to a specialized court for complex disputes. While Jenkins-Hernandez reportedly found alternative means to pay for the dance lessons, the larger issue of financial oversight and control of Avielle’s trust fund remains unresolved.
O’Regan argues strongly that Jenkins-Hernandez should no longer be entrusted with the funds, especially given the significant amount – around $700,000 – currently in the trust, which Avielle will be eligible to receive at age 25. The core allegation is that Jenkins-Hernandez has been “co-mingling” Avielle’s funds with her own, a serious breach of her responsibilities as conservator.
The question of did Shayanna Jenkins get any money meant for her daughter remains at the heart of this legal battle. While some expenses may have indirectly benefited her, the central concern is whether she directly and inappropriately used funds intended solely for Avielle’s care and upbringing. The court’s decision will ultimately determine not only the immediate control of the trust fund but also set a precedent for how such funds are managed in similar situations, ensuring the financial security and well-being of the intended beneficiaries.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice.
