Blind Side may be the most fitting name ever for this story

[Footballking16]

Really weird story coming out of Oher's camp today. Former 1st round pick alleging Blind Side was one big lie in the sense the Tuohy's never adopted him and instead acted as conservators to prevent him from ever making money on a book and film about his own personal life.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38190720/blind-side-subject-michael-oher-alleges-adoption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds

So much to unpack here. 

-Oher signed away his rights at 18 making him a consenting adult at the time.

-Waited until he retired from the NFL to research if he was actually ever legally adopted and nearly 20 years after he signed his rights away to make this public; I've always been under the impression that anyone over the age of 18 must legally consent to being adopted and a court hearing must take place in order for the adoption to be recognized. Would think that matter would have been uncovered years ago.

-Very real chance the Tuohy's took severe of a very underprivileged adult but did so in a manner that from a legality standpoint never broke any laws and Oher may be SOL in the end.

Any thoughts from a legal standpoint @Bobref

[Bobref]

7 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Really weird story coming out of Oher's camp today. Former 1st round pick alleging Blind Side was one big lie in the sense the Tuohy's never adopted him and instead acted as conservators to prevent him from ever making money on a book and film about his own personal life.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38190720/blind-side-subject-michael-oher-alleges-adoption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds

So much to unpack here. 

-Oher signed away his rights at 18 making him a consenting adult at the time.

-Waited until he retired from the NFL to research if he was actually ever legally adopted and nearly 20 years after he signed his rights away to make this public; I've always been under the impression that anyone over the age of 18 must legally consent to being adopted and a court hearing must take place in order for the adoption to be recognized. Would think that matter would have been uncovered years ago.

-Very real chance the Tuohy's took severe of a very underprivileged adult but did so in a manner that from a legality standpoint never broke any laws and Oher may be SOL in the end.

Any thoughts from a legal standpoint @Bobref

It’s a pretty fact-specific issue, and we certainly haven’t heard all the facts. But the lengthy delay in asserting his rights strikes me as a significant obstacle to any relief.

[temptation]

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

It’s a pretty fact-specific issue, and we certainly haven’t heard all the facts. But the lengthy delay in asserting his rights strikes me as a significant obstacle to any relief.

Seconded.  Why now?

[Footballking16]

1 minute ago, temptation said:

Seconded.  Why now?

I'd think the obvious reason is that he's currently broke and Blind Side was nominated for picture of the year and grossed over $300 million at the box office. There's money to be made if he can get his hands on it after the fact. 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

I'd think the obvious reason is that he's currently broke and Blind Side was nominated for picture of the year and grossed over $300 million at the box office. There's money to be made if he can get his hands on it after the fact. 

That may be true. But I think he’ll need an actual legal reason … and that ain’t one.

[Footballking16]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

That may be true. But I think he’ll need an actual legal reason … and that ain’t one.

That’s kind of the point I’m trying to make. At 18 he signed a document as a legal consenting adult waiving his rights. That was in 2004. Is there grounds in which that contract can be voided? Could some type of fraud be proven if the Tuohy’s presented the documents under false pretenses? Is it his fault for not reading the fine print as a legal consenting adult no matter how bad he was duped? 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

That’s kind of the point I’m trying to make. At 18 he signed a document as a legal consenting adult waiving his rights. That was in 2004. Is there grounds in which that contract can be voided? Could some type of fraud be proven if the Tuohy’s presented the documents under false pretenses? Is it his fault for not reading the fine print as a legal consenting adult no matter how bad he was duped? 

I can still remember my Commercial Transactions prof in law school saying “Fraud vitiates all.” In other words, if you can prove some type of fraud, you can often avoid otherwise insurmountable obstacles like a statute of limitations. As you might expect, proving fraud is very difficult.

[Gipper]

Greed is good.  But is it in this case?  

[Muda69]

Mr. Oher should have watched Broke, and learned something.

[Bash Riprock]

17 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

That’s kind of the point I’m trying to make. At 18 he signed a document as a legal consenting adult waiving his rights. That was in 2004. Is there grounds in which that contract can be voided? Could some type of fraud be proven if the Tuohy’s presented the documents under false pretenses? Is it his fault for not reading the fine print as a legal consenting adult no matter how bad he was duped? 

Always 2 sides to every story.....The Tuohy's sold their fast food business for a super large chunk of money....and they are trying to scam Oher?  This is an interesting read........I want to hope they are legit people, but who knows anymore.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/14/the-blind-side-family-responds-to-michael-ohers-lawsuit-against-them/

Oher was married Nov 2022 and the Tuohy's were not invited.  Potential for Michael being influenced?

 

[temptation]

22 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

Always 2 sides to every story.....The Tuohy's sold their fast food business for a super large chunk of money....and they are trying to scam Oher?  This is an interesting read........I want to hope they are legit people, but who knows anymore.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/14/the-blind-side-family-responds-to-michael-ohers-lawsuit-against-them/

Oher was married Nov 2022 and the Tuohy's were not invited.  Potential for Michael being influenced?

 

Once again, the mob/media got out in front of this story in an attempt to get clicks and be first.

No one wants to wait for all of the details before making their minds up anymore.  Then retractions and apologies are nonexistent.

Let's watch this one play out (feel like I am saying that a lot lately).

[Bash Riprock]

32 minutes ago, temptation said:

Once again, the mob/media got out in front of this story in an attempt to get clicks and be first.

No one wants to wait for all of the details before making their minds up anymore.  Then retractions and apologies are nonexistent.

Let's watch this one play out (feel like I am saying that a lot lately).

This gets more interesting.....if true, feels a little like extortion.  Bob, don't mean to use the wrong legal term.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38199104/tuohy-family-disputes-michael-oher-claims-alleges-shakedown-blind-side-subject

The Tennessee family accused by retired NFL star Michael Oher of tricking him into a conservatorship and taking all the proceeds from a blockbuster film about his life responded to the allegations Tuesday by claiming that Oher threatened to go public with his story if they did not pay him $15 million.

Attorney Martin Singer issued a statement on the Tuohys' behalf that called Oher's claims "outlandish" and said "the idea that the family ever sought to profit off Mr. Oher is not only offensive, it is transparently ridiculous."

"In reality, the Tuohys opened their home to Mr. Oher, offered him structure, support and, most of all, unconditional love," Singer's statement said. "They have consistently treated him like a son and one of their three children. His response was to threaten them, including saying that he would plant a negative story about them in the press unless they paid him $15 million."

 

Additionally, not sure about the accuracy of this source....

https://people.com/tuohy-family-has-not-received-millions-from-the-blind-side-source-7644002

A source close to the film tells PEOPLE the Tuohys have received approximately $700,000 total in rights, payments and profits, which was intended to be divided between the family members — Sean, Leigh Anne, their two biological children and Oher.  

"The Tuohys have not received millions of dollars from the movie,” says the source. "They have not even received $1 million from the movie.”Marty Singer, an attorney who is representing the Tuohy family, flatly rejected Oher’s claims.

“When Michael Lewis, a friend of Sean’s since childhood, was approached about turning his book on Mr. Oher and the Tuohys into a movie about their family, his agents negotiated a deal where they received a small advance from the production company and a tiny percentage of net profits. They insisted that any money received be divided equally. And they have made good on that pledge,” said Singer in a statement shared with PEOPLE. 

Singer's statement continued: “The evidence – documented in profit participation checks and studio accounting statements – is clear: over the years, the Tuohys have given Mr. Oher an equal cut of every penny received from The Blind Side.”

In his petition, Oher also claims he unknowingly authorized the couple to be his conservators in 2004 , “despite the fact that he was over 18 years of age and had no diagnosed physical or psychological disabilities.”