Read the ESPN "FAQ" article I posted...there are a few more contradictions from the Touhys that don't make sense...but I didn't feel like expounding on them, but they are in there.
OK, but here's the thing...
It is possible for each side to have facts that both HELP their argument and/or sympathy, and facts which HURT them in that regard.
I am not supporting EITHER side. I think it is sad that it has reached this point.
So let's just think about this, because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here.
The real point of contention would be circumstances involving the book and the movie. I do not believe anyone is contending that the conservatorship took any of Michael's NFL salary that he has earned as an adult.
And while it is possible for an outside advisor to BELIEVE that a runaway hit movie has generated millions of dollars that "should" go to Michael Oher, the reality of such Hollywood movie deals is usually different. Just because a movie EVENTUALLY succeeded does not create a situation where the movie studio then retroactively decides to give millions back to the original creator(s) of the story.
One of the more famous examples of this is the movie Forrest Gump, which notoriously 'promised" a profit participation to Winston Groom (the author of the novel), but then SOMEHOW the movie never earned a profit, even though it was one of the most successful films of the decade. They don't call it "Hollywood Accounting" for nothing.
Now, as I said, some facts are "good" for one side and some are "not so good". In my OWN PERSONAL OPINION, I think it is a bit...unusual...to split the movie rights money 5 ways. If anything, I would have given a larger percentage to Michael Oher, but that's just MY feeling.
As mentioned above, we can debate whether the movie ever made a "profit". But the issue of the initial payment(s) should be factual and verifiable as to certain aspects. For instance, the TOTAL amount paid (and I guess paid over, such as money going from the author to the family) should be evidenced by checks and bank deposits. There does seem to be a discrepancy between the ESPN reports of how much was paid to the family, when compared to the family's own accounting, so to speak, but this appears to be in the "thousands" range of variance, not in the "millions".
Finally, as for the rest of the big to-do, on whether Michael Oher was "adopted" or brought into the family via conservatorship, I'm not sure that there is a ton of meat on the bone here. The biggest fact going against Michael Oher is his OWN acknowledgement that, yes, he was not adopted (per his own autobiography). As for the family's explanation of things, it's very likely they WERE advised on something in the context of college and recruiting (i.e., Oher was too old to be adopted) that might not be the exact statement of Mississippi law. Regardless of any claims, adoption of an ADULT is very rare IN ANY STATE FOR ANY REASON. That's just a fact. We could question why the family's book and the "Blind Side" book are not SUPER explicit on the differences between adoption and conservatorship, but I don't see where there was a devious intention to confuse the two. I've seen plenty of families that will state a familial bond out of FEELING, rather than a particular legal status.
I don't see a lot of bad intention on anyone's part here, except possibly for any legal advice to Michael Oher that there are "millions" of dollars from The Blind Side that have never been paid to him. That's just not how Hollywood works. I'm sure that the studio cheaped-out on giving the author and/or the family any more than what was previously agreed upon. And if the family has correctly stated the situation, and can trace the payments and splits to deposits in the trust account, I'm not sure why anyone will think that this will result in a big payday for anyone.
Let's just wait to see if there are any REAL smoking guns, otherwise I'm just chalking this one up to "sad and pathetic family feud" for the time being.
I was joking btw
www.theblaze.com