Blind Side's Michael Oher had a conservatorship? What?

[LuvOrlando]

The math in the bolded only makes sense if the person with the home, the debt and the million dollar bank account has absolutely no other income stream or potential for same, which is possible I suppose, although seems unlikely more often than not.

Really? Lots of seemingly loaded people are living above their means, all you need to do is spend more + owe more > than you make. Even most everyday people who owe on a mortgage are more in the hole than my fast food kid example, as we all saw during the housing crisis in 2008.

 

[cabanafrau]

Really? Lots of seemingly loaded people are living above their means, all you need to do is spend more + owe more > than you make. Even most everyday people who owe on a mortgage are more in the hole than my fast food kid example, as we all saw during the housing crisis in 2008.

No doubt that is possible. Happens every day -- reading here on this very site we no doubt watch it play out several times a week in many of the folks obsessively planning their thrice or more annual visits to the Mouse they cannot actually afford but will continue to take until there is no more road left to kick the can down.

My comment holds. Given the outline you gave in your post the facts don't automatically indicate someone living above their means if they have the income stream to service their debt. The scenario you outlined doesn't indicate they have no income stream or the potential for one, doesn't indicate if they own the $10 mil home outright, doesn't even indicate what the $5 mil in debt stems from. Without those details clarified it is indeed possible their financial picture is considerably rosier at this point in time than the 18 year old with no debt and the McDonald's paycheck. (Doesn't mean the 18 year old has no potential for a rosy financial future either.)

All the facts need to be known before pronouncing what the actual situation is with certainty -- just like Michael Oher's. I'm uncertain what state the conservatorship was entered in and don't have any idea what the probate laws there might require, but I do know that here in MI, just as in Barkley's situation, there would be court ordered annual accountings regarding ongoing conservatorships. I'm unclear how it has been possible for Oher to have signed employment contracts and handled his own finances all these years without the involvement of the Tuohys because that would not be possible here either. Current reports suggest he has done both. In conservatorships I'm familiar with non-professional conservators who would be responsible for handling significant funds such as an NFL player's earnings would be required by the Court to be bonded to help protect the ward from malfeasance. States do have varying laws regarding these types of matters but I can't imagine whatever the state in question here didn't have something in place allowing the court regular oversight into matters of accounting and some type of protection for the ward's funds from possible conservators' misdeeds. Based on anecdotal evidence from preliminary comments from both sides I haven't seen anything that suggests the Tuohys sought to become conservators in order to financially exploit Oher. The book/movie deals don't seem to be major revenue streams in the financial picture for either side, with both sides seeming to have much bigger fish to fry elsewhere. Notably Oher isn't claiming the Tuohys have profited in any way from his main revenue source, his NFL earnings. The conservatorship might not have been so purely motivated as the feel good Blind Side was supposed to make us feel. It's also possible that the family did have/has some genuine affection for Oher and has chosen not to air certain dirty laundry publicly in hopes a relationship can be repaired. Given his tumultuous upbringing it wouldn't exactly be shocking for the guy to have difficult social/familial relationships and struggle with managing money. News soundbites and social media armchair quarterbacking aren't enough info to go on to flesh this whole thing out at this point. Unlike the movie I'm expecting this to be a case where things don't work out against all the odds with tears of joy.

 

[_19disnA]

Found the movie entertaining when I saw it several years ago. Many times, movies will embellish reality to make it seem more interesting. I am not a lawyer and usually with most situations there are two sides to every story so who knows how closely to real life the movie portrayed those individuals or the various situations taking place after that? Laws can also vary by state so it is impossible for me to draw any conclusions about this situation, not really anything I would focus on.

 

[bcla]

The situation was investigated by the NCAA back in the day because boosters can’t approach prospects. There’s some guessing that the NCAA might have backed off since he was living with them, and he could have gone anywhere else and not had to sign the conservatorship, but he chose ole miss. Hence, the outcome being a conservatorship. (And he might have been persuaded to go to ole miss, but in all the press and everything, he never indicated he was pressured. That would definitely be believable.)

NCAA compliance is a massive pain. I was a small time booster (a few hundred dollars a year) and it got really crazy with the relatively minor sport that I watched. But I donated because it was a requirement for my football season tickets, even though I could specify the program that received the donations.

I remember the notices I received that I was considered a "representative" on the basis of my donations and being a season ticket holder. A few parents of recruits might have known who I was and I tried my best to be polite and tell them I couldn't say anything. But I was a nobody really. I was in no position to provide anything. I just took a lot of interest in one sport.

I even remember once we were put in touch with a men's basketball player through a mutual friend, and we were thinking of inviting him for dinner, which is supposedly allowed as an occasional thing. I would have probably provided transportation too, although I'm not sure if a 7 footer could fit in my car. Never happened though, but once I was sitting next to the athletic dept's head compliance officer at a basketball game and gave him the hypothetical other than who the athlete was, and he said he might want to be notified of it and his first thought was that it wasn't a good idea even if the rules allowed it.

Another time I got a request through a private message if I might go to a game and take pictures for the father of an Australian athlete. I had no relationship with either athletic dept and certainly didn't meet any of the qualifications for being a booster. It was also not professional quality. But I decided to call the compliance dept at the kid's athletic dept and was told in no uncertain terms that they didn't like the idea of what I was proposing to do, regardless of whether or not I wasn't considered a booster. The compliance officer seemed terrified that it might get them in trouble. I did it anyways, but at least I got to hear their side of it.

 

[LuvOrlando]

No doubt that is possible. Happens every day -- reading here on this very site we no doubt watch it play out several times a week in many of the folks obsessively planning their thrice or more annual visits to the Mouse they cannot actually afford but will continue to take until there is no more road left to kick the can down.

My comment holds.

So does mine, not really sure where this is going.

 

[LuvOrlando]

NCAA compliance is a massive pain. I was a small time booster (a few hundred dollars a year) and it got really crazy with the relatively minor sport that I watched. But I donated because it was a requirement for my football season tickets, even though I could specify the program that received the donations.

I remember the notices I received that I was considered a "representative" on the basis of my donations and being a season ticket holder. A few parents of recruits might have known who I was and I tried my best to be polite and tell them I couldn't say anything. But I was a nobody really. I was in no position to provide anything. I just took a lot of interest in one sport.

I even remember once we were put in touch with a men's basketball player through a mutual friend, and we were thinking of inviting him for dinner, which is supposedly allowed as an occasional thing. I would have probably provided transportation too, although I'm not sure if a 7 footer could fit in my car. Never happened though, but once I was sitting next to the athletic dept's head compliance officer at a basketball game and gave him the hypothetical other than who the athlete was, and he said he might want to be notified of it and his first thought was that it wasn't a good idea even if the rules allowed it.

Another time I got a request through a private message if I might go to a game and take pictures for the father of an Australian athlete. I had no relationship with either athletic dept and certainly didn't meet any of the qualifications for being a booster. It was also not professional quality. But I decided to call the compliance dept at the kid's athletic dept and was told in no uncertain terms that they didn't like the idea of what I was proposing to do, regardless of whether or not I wasn't considered a booster. The compliance officer seemed terrified that it might get them in trouble. I did it anyways, but at least I got to hear their side of it.

This sounds like a very complicated process, sounds best to avoid the whole thing.

 

[barkley]

I do know that here in MI, just as in Barkley's situation, there would be court ordered annual accountings regarding ongoing conservatorships. I'm unclear how it has been possible for Oher to have signed employment contracts and handled his own finances all these years without the involvement of the Tuohys because that would not be possible here either.

also not familiar with how it works in other states than my own BUT we've found that it's not like there's a state or national registry you can put an individual under guardianship or conservatorship on to alert someone who might enter into a contract that the individual does not have that legal ability. if the individual were to enter into a contract the conservator (or guardian) would absolutly have the legal right to terminate a contract b/c it would'nt be valid but unless they took action and noone fussed about it then it would likely continue to it's intended purposes.

by virtue of oher signing his nfl contract, book deal, real estate, release of likeness/name....contracts all these years without any intervention on the part of the conservators it seems that it was likely for the purposes they claim-just to meet the ncaa compliance.

 

[Dakota731]

As usual the press comes out with a one sided story, and everyone jumps on it without knowing the truth or bothering to get the facts (Jussie Smollett ring a bell?). There is no attempt to find out the other side of the story - already people are persecuting this couple and treating Oher like a victim. Then other shoe drops “In a statement sent to Deadline from Martin Singer, who represents Sean and Leigh Anne Touhy, the attorney denied all of the allegations made against his clients and claimed that Oher attempted to blackmail the Tuohys, saying he would put out a negative story about them in the press unless they pay him $15 million.”
Just maybe people should wait until an ENTIRE story comes out before demonizing a family.

 

[Dakota731]

Producers of The Blind Side, Johnson and Kosove explained in a statement obtained by People Magazine that the family, including Oher, made roughly $767,000 in total payments.

The deal "was consistent with the marketplace at that time for the rights of relatively unknown individuals," the statement detailed. "Therefore, it did not include significant payouts in the event of the film’s success. "As a result, the notion that the Tuohys were paid millions of dollars by Alcon to the detriment of Michael Oher is false."

 

[bcla]

This sounds like a very complicated process, sounds best to avoid the whole thing.

The key was that they didn't want boosters to be involved in the recruiting of athletes unless it was done in an official capacity with lots of rules. I knew many coaches, they said all the recruiting rules are complicated to learn and anyone who recruits has to be certified.

I think it's a little bit more complicated now with "name image and likeness" contracts allowed. But they still don't want boosters involved if it can be helped.

https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208216065.aspx​

Representatives of Athletics Interests​

Under NCAA rules a "representative of the institution's athletics interests (athletics representative/booster) is any individual who:​

​

1. Made any type of contribution to the University or Athletic Department;
2. Joined a Cal booster club or any sport specific support group;
3. Provided benefits (e.g., summer jobs) to prospective or enrolled student-athletes or their families;
4. Assisted, in any manner, in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
5. Participated as a varsity athlete at the University of California;
6. Is the parent or legal guardian of an enrolled student-athlete;
7. Promoted the athletics program in any way.​

​

Once an individual is identified as a "Representative of the Institution's Athletics Interest," the person retains that identity forever.​

​

NCAA rules hold the institution responsible for all actions of its athletics representatives. Boosters involved in NCAA violations may lose benefits and privileges associated with the athletic program (e.g., ticket privileges or priority seating).​

The most notorious booster in history was a UCLA supporter named Sam Gilbert.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jun-08-la-sp-0609-wooden-gilbert-20100609-story.html

 

[bcla]

As usual the press comes out with a one sided story, and everyone jumps on it without knowing the truth or bothering to get the facts (Jussie Smollett ring a bell?). There is no attempt to find out the other side of the story - already people are persecuting this couple and treating Oher like a victim. Then other shoe drops “In a statement sent to Deadline from Martin Singer, who represents Sean and Leigh Anne Touhy, the attorney denied all of the allegations made against his clients and claimed that Oher attempted to blackmail the Tuohys, saying he would put out a negative story about them in the press unless they pay him $15 million.”
Just maybe people should wait until an ENTIRE story comes out before demonizing a family.

Where have you been?

How much money the Tuohys made and their story has been well told. I've seen discussion on this, and their claims came out and for the most part discussions have been sympathetic to them given that they claim they didn't make much and that they placed it in a trust for Oher when he wouldn't accept it.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...doption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...r-claims-alleges-shakedown-blind-side-subject

 

[cabanafrau]

also not familiar with how it works in other states than my own BUT we've found that it's not like there's a state or national registry you can put an individual under guardianship or conservatorship on to alert someone who might enter into a contract that the individual does not have that legal ability. if the individual were to enter into a contract the conservator (or guardian) would absolutly have the legal right to terminate a contract b/c it would'nt be valid but unless they took action and noone fussed about it then it would likely continue to it's intended purposes.

by virtue of oher signing his nfl contract, book deal, real estate, release of likeness/name....contracts all these years without any intervention on the part of the conservators it seems that it was likely for the purposes they claim-just to meet the ncaa compliance.

That's true. The strange part about his particular case is the profile he would have as an NFL player. With our probate judges that would at least trigger whoever is assigned to the case to question why his NFL $$ isn't showing up on the annual accounting and potentially leading to questions whether the conservatorship should be dissolved.