Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
First of all, you don't just make up a Trust. I have a Trust for my wife and kids...it's not something you just whip up. It will be easy to prove if it existed the whole time. The law firm that drew up the Trust and the bank that hold all the funds in the trust would have to lie under oath to cover it up or try to fudge the dates.
Secondly, children do not have an automatic claim on a will. They have to be identified and spell out what exactly they get. A parent can give everything to a charity or a hobo they once met on the street. Yes, if children have been identified and you change your mind, they have to be written out, but they are not automatically part of the will unless named.
Thirdly, people fraudulently claiming inheritance is probably a lot more common than you believe. That's why wills and trusts are so complicated and detailed.
Fourthly, if they didn't want to legally adopt Mike, that's their prerogative. That is a MASSIVE risk for anyone with assets to adopt an adult and give them equal legal standing. Not sure why you think that is a problem.
You know, it's OK to once in a while admit that you jumped the gun and might be wrong. We don't know how this is going to shake out, but you seem to blindly take Mike at his word and assume the rich family is a bunch of liars.
nah you're all the ones jumping the gun. It's incredibly obvious from all the pro-Tuohy responses being mostly based on emotion, poorly construed logic, and false information.
Children not mentioned in a will can easily contest it claiming they were simply unintentionally left out and win an inheritance. That is why you have to specifically disinherit them and not just leave them out of the will. Children are entitled to an inheritance when you die without a will which is why you have to be incredibly deliberate about disinheriting them in a will. That entitlement doesn't just go away easily.
Well, you are wrong. Don't know how else to explain it to you, but children DO NOT have an automatic claim on a will. They have to expressly be written into the will before they can claim anything. A parent can give everything to a charity if they want. I already said that if a parent specifically identifies children in the will then has another child but that child is not in the will, most states have provisions to cover that....meaning the deceased likely meant all children and just didn't include one of them by accident. But then that is not automatic, it's a lawsuit. But strictly legally speaking, children DO NOT have an automatic claim on a will unless they are identified in the will. Look it up.
Don’t make me put a bunch of links proving you wrong. I don’t say things without looking into it
Man we can not kick off the season too soon!!! We need football 🏈! Go Dawgs!!!
true
Here's the other side of the story. Interesting that the Tuohy's claim Mike has tried this in the past and no lawyer would take the case once they saw the evidence. I'm still wondering why Mike is only just now seeking to dissolve his conservatorship at age 36.
Tuohys dispute Michael Oher claims, allege 'shakedown effort' - ESPN
Well, that's a horse of a different color, my friend. While I am practicing detente right now 🤐, I am preparing some even more epic post-game, late-night drunken rants for the "in-season" personal-attacks-on-strangers season! 😝
Wasn't Justin Fields his back up for a while? 😉
Can't wait, I know you will shine.
Yup I called it. It’s all “I don’t take anything at face value” when Oher files his petition but when the Tuohys hire a lawyer that only releases a media statement it’s accepted uncritically at face value.
You are jumping to conclusions again. I just said this is the other side of the story (there is ALWAYS an other side of the story). Didn't claim either side was right or accept anything uncritically at face value. That's your typical spin. I just posted their response so far to all this. Take it for what it's worth. Aren't you interested in hearing their side? It will all come out in the end. This seems like a pretty easy case to prove one way or another.
I already read their statements. Lots of inconsistencies between what the family said and what this lawyer put out. They’ve already been proven to be untrustworthy. The shakedown wording is also such a lazy framing and narrative spin. Just shows Oher wanted to settle out of court and spare them embarrassment and himself a huge hassle. Don’t buy the other lawyers rejected him bit either. If that’s the case why are they so shocked and hurt that he sued them? Literally nothing is adding up from their side. As to why he didn’t end the conservatorship earlier he thought it gave him a legal connection to their family. Once he learned that it didn’t he petitioned to end it. That’s pretty simple and is laid out in his petition
Why is Mike wasting money on lawyers, he should just hire you? You know all the facts already from ESPN stories. You got it all figured out. Glad you are here to set the record straight for us all on a subject you knew nothing about just a day or two ago.