Blind Sided?

[Ed Monix]

Retired NFL star Michael Oher, whose supposed adoption out of grinding poverty by a wealthy, white family was immortalized in the 2009 movie "The Blind Side," petitioned a Tennessee court Monday with allegations that a central element of the story was a lie concocted by the family to enrich itself at his expense.

The 14-page petition, filed in Shelby County, Tennessee, probate court, alleges that Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, who took Oher into their home as a high school student, never adopted him. Instead, less than three months after Oher turned 18 in 2004, the petition says, the couple tricked him into signing a document making them his conservators, which gave them legal authority to make business deals in his name.

The petition further alleges that the Tuohys used their power as conservators to strike a deal that paid them and their two birth children millions of dollars in royalties from an Oscar-winning film that earned more than $300 million, while Oher got nothing for a story "that would not have existed without him." In the years since, the Tuohys have continued calling the 37-year-old Oher their adopted son and have used that assertion to promote their foundation as well as Leigh Anne Tuohy's work as an author and motivational speaker.

"The lie of Michael's adoption is one upon which Co-Conservators Leigh Anne Tuohy and Sean Tuohy have enriched themselves at the expense of their Ward, the undersigned Michael Oher," the legal filing says. "Michael Oher discovered this lie to his chagrin and embarrassment in February of 2023, when he learned that the Conservatorship to which he consented on the basis that doing so would make him a member of the Tuohy family, in fact provided him no familial relationship with the Tuohys."

———

Source: ESPN

[Ed Monix]

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

[Celtics4ever]

The movie was total crock and BS is what this boils down too.

[footey]

I've been a fan of Michael Lewis' books, including Liar's Poker, Moneyball, the Big Short, and yes, The Blind Side.  He composes a compelling narrative. 

The problem is when the actual facts don't fit the narrative flow. I doubt Lewis was aware of these alleged facts (they are just allegations, waiting for the family's response).  I can't speak about the movie, I didn't see it.  I thought Moneyball was an excellent film.  The Big Short so so. 

[Roy H.]

It's sad to see how this has played out.  It certainly seems sketchy to choose a conservatorship over an adoption, but I don't know the circumstances. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

It's sad to see how this has played out.  It certainly seems sketchy to choose a conservatorship over an adoption, but I don't know the circumstances.

https://www.tmz.com/2023/08/14/sean-tuohy-calls-michael-oher-claims-insulting-says-family-made-no-money-off-blind-side/

He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."

I guess the question is, what would prevent them from doing an adoption... as I see no law that would prevent it.

But there's still the issue of them using the narrative of the adoption regardless, but at the same time Oher himself consented to it seemingly because he wanted to play in that NCAA university (so he wasn't lied to on that regard). So, would this have happened if he picked a different school? It seems the family was providing for him regardless prior to this.

In the end, the meat is in the details and we have no access to those other than a he said, she said situation about money... and a family apparently mislead about the adoption (to the public).

I don't think I care too much about this other that this seems like they could've handled this privately, but still interesting to see I guess.

[Roy H.]

He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."

Yeah, I know that many states allow adult adoption, including Tennessee:

https://chattanoogatnlawfirm.com/chattanooga-adoption-lawyer/adult/#:~:text=The%20transfer%20of%20all%20parental,quite%20simply%2C%20just%20requires%20consent.

It sounds like a pretty easy process there.  I don't know if that's where they were residing at the time, but if it is they must have consulted with some terrible attorneys.  Or, good attorneys for purposes of controlling their ward's finances.  Shrug.

[bdm860]

He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."

Yeah, I know that many states allow adult adoption, including Tennessee:

https://chattanoogatnlawfirm.com/chattanooga-adoption-lawyer/adult/#:~:text=The%20transfer%20of%20all%20parental,quite%20simply%2C%20just%20requires%20consent.

It sounds like a pretty easy process there.  I don't know if that's where they were residing at the time, but if it is they must have consulted with some terrible attorneys.  Or, good attorneys for purposes of controlling their ward's finances.  Shrug.

Maybe not a state/federal law, but maybe an NCAA rule to essentially avoid the worst case scenario here that the Tuohys are accused of: rich boosters adopting college-aged adults as a loophole to get around gifts/paying players.

I've actually heard of the opposite happening too, rich parents will have a poor relative legally adopt their child so they will qualify for financial aid/reduced tuition.  People will exploit any loophole they can, so I can see the NCAA rule being there to deter boosters from sham adoptions.




When it comes to the Blind Side book/movie, I can see huge confusion there.  People often (wrongly) think that just because something made money, the key contributors/creators/subjects get paid.  Squid Game creator didn't get paid extra even though it increased Netflix's value by almost a billion dollars.  Hulu made a mini-series on Mike Tyson last year and apparently didn't have to pay him for the right to do so.  Dave Chappelle wasn't getting paid for Chappelle Show despite it being a huge success, the Nike logo creator was paid $35 (but later gifted $125 in stock that appreciated greatly), the Smiley face creator only got $45, I think there's a long list of musical acts who made hit records but didn't get paid because they didn't own the rights, etc.  Tons of examples like these (and one of the reasons for the current writer's strike).

Oher is not the first, nor will be the last, to think he's owed money due to the success of his story.  If the Tuohy's got paid millions and split it 4 ways and cut Oher out, they're scum.  But if they got a small amount and split it evenly (in the TMZ article Sean Tuohy said $14k each which would be $70k total), Oher might have some misguided anger and be getting bad advice.  When you have $35m in career earnings, getting a $14k check probably not that memorable.

Being a little more familiar with financial matters, my first guess is Oher is probably greatly overestimating what his cut from the book/movie should be worth.  Being paid a small one time fee upfront with no backend compensation is not unusual.  But we'll see, maybe the Tuohy's did mislead/lie/rob him.

[Roy H.]

He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."

Yeah, I know that many states allow adult adoption, including Tennessee:

https://chattanoogatnlawfirm.com/chattanooga-adoption-lawyer/adult/#:~:text=The%20transfer%20of%20all%20parental,quite%20simply%2C%20just%20requires%20consent.

It sounds like a pretty easy process there.  I don't know if that's where they were residing at the time, but if it is they must have consulted with some terrible attorneys.  Or, good attorneys for purposes of controlling their ward's finances.  Shrug.

Maybe not a state/federal law, but maybe an NCAA rule to essentially avoid the worst case scenario here that the Tuohys are accused of: rich boosters adopting college-aged adults as a loophole to get around gifts/paying players.

I've actually heard of the opposite happening too, rich parents will have a poor relative legally adopt their child so they will qualify for financial aid/reduced tuition.  People will exploit any loophole they can, so I can see the NCAA rule being there to deter boosters from sham adoptions.




When it comes to the Blind Side book/movie, I can see huge confusion there.  People often (wrongly) think that just because something made money, the key contributors/creators/subjects get paid.  Squid Game creator didn't get paid extra even though it increased Netflix's value by almost a billion dollars.  Hulu made a mini-series on Mike Tyson last year and apparently didn't have to pay him for the right to do so.  Dave Chappelle wasn't getting paid for Chappelle Show despite it being a huge success, the Nike logo creator was paid $35 (but later gifted $125 in stock that appreciated greatly), the Smiley face creator only got $45, I think there's a long list of musical acts who made hit records but didn't get paid because they didn't own the rights, etc.  Tons of examples like these (and one of the reasons for the current writer's strike).

Oher is not the first, nor will be the last, to think he's owed money due to the success of his story.  If the Tuohy's got paid millions and split it 4 ways and cut Oher out, they're scum.  But if they got a small amount and split it evenly (in the TMZ article Sean Tuohy said $14k each which would be $70k total), Oher might have some misguided anger and be getting bad advice.  When you have $35m in career earnings, getting a $14k check probably not that memorable.

Being a little more familiar with financial matters, my first guess is Oher is probably greatly overestimating what his cut from the book/movie should be worth.  Being paid a small one time fee upfront with no backend compensation is not unusual.  But we'll see, maybe the Tuohy's did mislead/lie/rob him.

A couple of counterpoints:  if the reason was the NCAA, say that, rather than saying they couldn't do an adult adoption because Oher was over 18.  That's a straight up lie.

And, here's the dad:

Yet, Sean told the outlet, "We didn't make any money off the movie."

"Well, Michael Lewis, the [author of the book on which the movie was based] gave us half of his share," he told the outlet. "Everybody in the family got an equal share, including Michael. It was about $14,000, each."

Versus the "adopted" brother:

SJ estimated that he’s received an additional $60,000 to $70,000 “over the course of the last four or five years” after the movie continued to make money.

So, first dad says "nothing".  Then it's $14k each.  Then the brother doesn't say how much he got up front or for prior residuals, but notes that from roughly 2018 until 2023 he made $60k - $70k.

[johnnygreen]

I wonder if Michael Oher is having money problems. This should have been a private matter between him and the family. I wonder if Oher did so privately (possibly extortion) but the family refused and he went public.

[bdm860]

A couple of counterpoints:  if the reason was the NCAA, say that, rather than saying they couldn't do an adult adoption because Oher was over 18.  That's a straight up lie.

So hypothetically, if the reason was that the NCAA rules state you can't be adopted over 18, and Tuohy was asked why they didn't adopt Oher, and his answer is "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."  That's a straight up lie?

Is it because he contacted lawyers, is your assumption that it's for actual state law reasons?  I assumed a rich booster could contact lawyers to navigate complex NCAA rules (as well as to interact with the NCAA on their behalf and document accordingly), making a statement like this true "we contacted lawyers (to work with the NCAA), they said we couldn't adopt Mike (due to NCAA rules), but we could do a conservatorship.".  In my head at least, it seems like a plausible scenario and answer.  Though if someone tells me there's never been any NCAA rule like that, then ya it looks like a straight up lie.

if the reason was the NCAA, say that

We're in the world of quick, possibly off-guard, off-the-cuff quotes.  I don't expect every quote to provide full historical context.  But the quotes preceding that said the whole situation was because of NCAA rules.

Instead, Tuohy said the whole ordeal went down because the NCAA told him if Oher wanted to attend Ole Miss -- he'd have to be considered part of the family due to Touhy's status as a "booster" at the school.

"I sat Michael down and told him, 'If you're planning to go to Ole Miss -- or even considering Ole Miss -- we think you have to be part of the family,'" Tuohy said. "'This would do that, legally.'"

He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."

So, first dad says "nothing".  Then it's $14k each.  Then the brother doesn't say how much he got up front or for prior residuals, but notes that from roughly 2018 until 2023 he made $60k - $70k.

On the dad piece, I think you're being too literal.  They owned 115 restaurants that they sold for $200m.  Michael Oher made $35m, and thinks he's owed millions more from the movie that initially grossed $300m.  In that world, $14k is seen as nothing.  Have you never referred to trivial amounts (to you) as nothing?  And you make it sound like he said he gave 2 different quotes contradicting himself, but the nothing and $14k seems to be from the same quote.

We didn’t make any money off the movie, well, Michael Lewis gave us half of his share. Everybody in the family got an equal share, including Michael. It was about $14,000, each."

This tracks with normal human conversation to me.  I didn't get anything, well actually I did get a little something, but it might as well been nothing.


The brother may be confused ($60k-$70k in total tracks with $14k per person), embellishing, etc.  Or maybe the mom handles the money, and dad doesn't know better?  Could be a lot of things here.  Don't know what the truth is.  Whatever it is, I don't think it's clear cut.

[Roy H.]

A couple of counterpoints:  if the reason was the NCAA, say that, rather than saying they couldn't do an adult adoption because Oher was over 18.  That's a straight up lie.

So hypothetically, if the reason was that the NCAA rules state you can't be adopted over 18, and Tuohy was asked why they didn't adopt Oher, and his answer is "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."  That's a straight up lie?

Is it because he contacted lawyers, is your assumption that it's for actual state law reasons?  I assumed a rich booster could contact lawyers to navigate complex NCAA rules (as well as to interact with the NCAA on their behalf and document accordingly), making a statement like this true "we contacted lawyers (to work with the NCAA), they said we couldn't adopt Mike (due to NCAA rules), but we could do a conservatorship.".  In my head at least, it seems like a plausible scenario and answer.  Though if someone tells me there's never been any NCAA rule like that, then ya it looks like a straight up lie.

if the reason was the NCAA, say that

We're in the world of quick, possibly off-guard, off-the-cuff quotes.  I don't expect every quote to provide full historical context.  But the quotes preceding that said the whole situation was because of NCAA rules.

Instead, Tuohy said the whole ordeal went down because the NCAA told him if Oher wanted to attend Ole Miss -- he'd have to be considered part of the family due to Touhy's status as a "booster" at the school.

"I sat Michael down and told him, 'If you're planning to go to Ole Miss -- or even considering Ole Miss -- we think you have to be part of the family,'" Tuohy said. "'This would do that, legally.'"

He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."

So, first dad says "nothing".  Then it's $14k each.  Then the brother doesn't say how much he got up front or for prior residuals, but notes that from roughly 2018 until 2023 he made $60k - $70k.

On the dad piece, I think you're being too literal.  They owned 115 restaurants that they sold for $200m.  Michael Oher made $35m, and thinks he's owed millions more from the movie that initially grossed $300m.  In that world, $14k is seen as nothing.  Have you never referred to trivial amounts (to you) as nothing?  And you make it sound like he said he gave 2 different quotes contradicting himself, but the nothing and $14k seems to be from the same quote.

We didn’t make any money off the movie, well, Michael Lewis gave us half of his share. Everybody in the family got an equal share, including Michael. It was about $14,000, each."

This tracks with normal human conversation to me.  I didn't get anything, well actually I did get a little something, but it might as well been nothing.


The brother may be confused ($60k-$70k in total tracks with $14k per person), embellishing, etc.  Or maybe the mom handles the money, and dad doesn't know better?  Could be a lot of things here.  Don't know what the truth is.  Whatever it is, I don't think it's clear cut.

And the part about getting paid in the past 4-5 years?  How are you going to contort that to defend their conflicting story?

And where is this NCAA regulation that says you must be part of a family, but can't be adopted over the age of 18? And how does being able to control an able-bodied adult's money make them part of the family?  And if the family being Mississippi boosters was an issue, why not adopt the kid and let him attend another school?

Two things can be true, and probably are:  Oher is vastly overestimating residuals, while also being legitimately misled.  There's an easy solution:  end the conservatorship, and agree to a court-appointed forensic accountant to figure out the money issues.

[Moranis]

I've never seen a conservatorship when an adult person wasn't mentally incapacitated in some way.  They are sometimes short term for temporary conditions but often are used for permanent conditions.  The fact that it was used here for a noncapacitated perfectly healthy person going off to college to play football raises all kinds of red flags.

[greg683x]

Years ago Michael Oher was on sports radio down here in the DC area promoting something and he seemed irritated anytime he was asked about the movie, always made me think he had something against it or maybe the way he was portrayed. Or who knows maybe he just tired of talking about it, but he just seemed real quick to shoot down questions by saying frustratingly saying ‘that’s Hollywood bro, none of that happened’

The movie is what it is, there’s so many movies that are touted as being true stories and when you read up on the them you find out many details are misleading and overly exaggerated.  Even the moneyball movie is very misleading, they purposefully don’t tell the audience that Oakland had three of the best starting pitchers in baseball in that year, and a league MVP in their lineup because the story is better if the audience thinks a team full of misfit toys won 20 games in a row bc of an algorithm.

I’d say the most troubling thing is all the money they mention that was made from foundations that were set up and books that were written all based on this adoption.

Whether it’s money from the movie or anything else, if Michael was willfully cut out of any of this stuff like he’s alleging then these are just truly awful people.  I hope they get what they deserve

[BudweiserCeltic]

https://www.tmz.com/2023/08/15/tuohy-family-claims-michael-oher-attempted-15-mil-shakedown-before-court-filing/

For now, I'm personally siding with the Tuohy family... we'll see.