ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2023 Sep 14 2:14 PM. CLERK OF COURT - PROBATE IN THE PROBATE COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE IN RE: MICHAEL JEROME WILLIAMS, JR. AVK/A MICHAEL JEROME OHER CAUSE NUMBER: C-010333 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. MICHAEL JEROME OHER WARD AND PETITIONER RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITION TO TERMINATE. CONSERVATORSHIP, FOR ACCOUNTING, AND OTHER RELIEF COMES NOW Respondents Sean Tuohy and wife Leigh Anne Tuohy and responds to the Petition to Terminate Conservatorship, for accounting, and other relief and would show unto the Court the following: 1. Admitted. 2, Respondents can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 2 but would demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. 3. The Respondents would admit that the Petitioner was selected to participate in the Tennessee All-State game in his senior year. The balance of the allegations in paragraph 3 are admitted. 4, Admitted in part and denied in part, These Respondents are without sufficient information to respond to the last sentence of paragraph 4. It is admitted that the Petitioner stayed in different people’s homes overnight on occasion. 5. The Respondents would show unto the Court that the Petitioner resided in their home at least on a part-time basis in January of 2004. They vehemently deny that they saw the Petitioner as a gullible young man whose athletic talent could be exploited for their ownbenefit. The Respondents admit that they never intended to, and in fact never did, take any action to assume legal custody through the Juvenile Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. . Admitted in part and denied in part, These Respondents admit that they invited the Petitioner to live in their home, but this took place prior to July of 2004. They Vehemently deny that they told the Petitioner that they intended fo legally adopt him. Clearly, the Respondents loved the Petitioner and as a result provided him with shelter, food, and clothing and in fact bought him more than one vehicle for his personal use, The Respondents consider the Petitioner as part of their family and over time the Petitioner referred to Respondents as “mom” and “dad,” and the Respondent's occasionally referred to the Petitioner as a son, In fact, they have always felt that the Petitioner was like a son and have used that on occasion but not in a legal sense, Further the efforts to open a Conservatorship only began as a result of Petitioner's opportunity to play college football. ‘There was never an intent to adopt him. When it became clear that the Petitioner could not consider going to the University of Mississippi (“Ole Miss”) as a result of living with the Respondents, the NCAA made it clear that the only way he could attend the Ole Miss if he was part of the Tuohy family in some fashion, Conservatorship was the tool chosen to accomplish this goal. . These Respondents admit thatthe Petitioner did move into their home. The remaining allegations of paragraph 7 are denied. In fact, the statement regarding Petitioner's discovery that he was not adopted, was in February of 2023 is demonstratively false. His 2011 book, / Beat The Odds clearly indicates that he was fully aware that the Tuohys‘were appointed as conservators, In fact, the Tuohys were appointed by Order of the Court date December 7, 2004 as Conservators of the Person. 8. Denied. The conservatorship was formed for the sole purpose of giving the Petitioner an ‘opportunity to choose to go to the school of his choice including Ole Miss. In fact, the ‘Tuohys never signed any contract for the Petitioner, including the hiring and/or firing of Various sports agents, his professional football contracts, or any other business that he may have had over the course of time. The Respondents may or may not have been required fo sign scholarship papers when he attended Ole Miss. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Respondents admit that various websites may have referred to the Petitioner as an adopted son. The Tuohys when referring to Michael as a son was done so in the colloquial sense and they have never intended that reference to be viewed with legal implication. The Respondents vehemently deny that any of these Tepresentations caused any imreparable harm, loss either past present or future, or damages to the Petitioner. 10, These Respondents vehemently deny the allegations of paragraph 10. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The Respondents signed but never negotiated any contract with Twentieth Century Fox or others. Any arrangements regarding the movie The Blind Side were done and through Michael Lewis, author of the book The Blind Side. 13. Denied. Respondents received a portion of the money paid to Michael Lewis which was something less than $225,00.00. 14, These Respondents can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 14 but would | { i demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. The insinuation thatPetitioner's signature was signed by the Tuohys is vehemently denied. The Respondents had nothing to do with Petitioner's contract regarding The Blind Side, In fact, when Mr. Lewis was in the process of selling The Blind Side the family met regarding the distribution of any proceeds from the movie. The Petitioner was likewise included in this meeting. All of the Tuohy family including the Petitioner agreed to this arrangement where each party would get 20% of the proceeds paid. 15, These allegations regarding the signature of “Michael Oher” being obtained by forgery, trickery or otherwise, is vehemently denied, 16. Admitted. The allegation fails to recognize that agreements were entered into during such time as Petitioner was a college athlete. Subsequent to the Petitioner finishing his eligibility at Ole Miss, the Respondents approached the Petitioner and indicated they could rearrange the funds to be paid from the movie to be sent directly to him which would have required Petitioner to take some action. He was happy with the arrangement and told the Respondents to leave the arrangements as they were. 17. The Respondents would admit that they received a $200,000.00 donation to their foundation. Likewise, the Petitioner had an opportunity to receive the exact same amount of money, $200,000.00, to be placed in a foundation or the charity of his choice. In fact, such a foundation was created by Debra Branan, attomey at law, but the Petitioner failed to take the necessary action to initiate the foundation despite the recommendations of the Respondents and Ms. Branan. 18, These Respondents would rely upon the Order as the Order speaks for itself. | 19. Respondents stand ready, willing, and able to terminate the conservatorship by consent at any time,20, Admitted. 21, Admitted. These Respondents would further show unto the Court that the Petitioner has never made any request to terminate the conservatorship either in writing or orally. 22. Respondents admit they have never filed accountings. In fact, Respondents were appointed as Conservator of the Person with no estate or assets. Therefore, the Court has neyer required any accountings. No notices have ever been issued by the Clerk of the Court requiring any accounting. 23. The Respondents deny the allegations made in paragraph 23 and demand strict proof. thereof if their rights are to be affected. 24, The Respondents deny the allegations made in paragraph 24 and demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. 25. Respondents stand ready to terminate the conservatorship by consent, 26. Respondents stand ready to terminate the conservatorship at any time. 27. Denied. These Respondents do not have the knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 27. The Respondents would state unto the Court that the conservatorship was necessary to satisfy the requirements of the NCAA so that Petitioner could consider attending Ole Miss if that wes the school of his choice. 28, The Respondents would state unto the Court that they have always acted in the best interest of the Petitioner. Further, the Respondents were appointed as Conservators of the Person. 29. The Respondents are without information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 29 and would demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. The Respondents would go on to say that all funds received from the movie The Blind Sidehave been equally divided among the Respondents, their two children, and the Petitioner. Jtis important to note that Petitioner's share was paid to Respondents who paid the taxes due on these funds for some period of time but still cut a check for a full share (20%) to Petitioner. 30. These Respondents deny that they breached any duties owed to the Petitioner. 31. Denied. These Respondents would deny that there is any need for injunctive relief. 32. Denied. Now having fully responded to the Petition, hese Respondents request that the Court deny all the relief sought by the Petitioner. The Respondents are ready, willing, and able to enter into a ‘Consent Order terminating the conservatorship and that they be allowed to go forward with their reasonable costs. Respect pbmite, ‘LIN & FISHMAN, P.C. Randall’, Fishman, Esq, (BPR #7097) Ballin, Ballin & Fishman PC 200 Jefferson Ave,, Ste. 1250 Memphis, TN 38103-2328 fi bt n FARESE, FARESE & FARESE Steve Farese, Esq. 122 Church Ave Ashland, MS 38603 Attorneys for RespondentsCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE » Ihe undersigned, hereby certify that on this the (day of September, 023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response has been sent via the Court's ECF system, U.S. Mail and/or electronic mail to the following: Anne Johnson, Esq. John W. ("Don") Barrett , Esq. Butler, Sevier, Hinsley & Reid, PLLC Sterling Aldridge, Esq, 530 Oak Court Drive, Suite 100 Barrett Law Group, P,A. Memphis, TN 38117-3722 404 Court Square [email protected] Lexington, MS 39095-3632 [email protected] J, Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. [email protected] Strauch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC The Freedom Center Richard Barrett, Esq. 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Law Office of Richard R, Barrett, PLLC Nashville, TN 27203-3513 2086 Old Taylor Rd., Suite 1011 [email protected] Oxford, MS 38655-5500 [email protected] J. FISHMAN i | |ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2023 Sep 14 2:14 PM. CLERK OF COURT - PROBATE IN THE PROBATE COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE IN RE: MICHAEL JEROME WILLIAMS, JR. AVK/A MICHAEL JEROME OHER CAUSE NUMBER: C-010333 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. MICHAEL JEROME OHER WARD AND PETITIONER RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITION TO TERMINATE. CONSERVATORSHIP, FOR ACCOUNTING, AND OTHER RELIEF COMES NOW Respondents Sean Tuohy and wife Leigh Anne Tuohy and responds to the Petition to Terminate Conservatorship, for accounting, and other relief and would show unto the Court the following: 1. Admitted. 2, Respondents can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 2 but would demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. 3. The Respondents would admit that the Petitioner was selected to participate in the Tennessee All-State game in his senior year. The balance of the allegations in paragraph 3 are admitted. 4, Admitted in part and denied in part, These Respondents are without sufficient information to respond to the last sentence of paragraph 4. It is admitted that the Petitioner stayed in different people’s homes overnight on occasion. 5. The Respondents would show unto the Court that the Petitioner resided in their home at least on a part-time basis in January of 2004. They vehemently deny that they saw the Petitioner as a gullible young man whose athletic talent could be exploited for their ownbenefit. The Respondents admit that they never intended to, and in fact never did, take any action to assume legal custody through the Juvenile Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. . Admitted in part and denied in part, These Respondents admit that they invited the Petitioner to live in their home, but this took place prior to July of 2004. They Vehemently deny that they told the Petitioner that they intended fo legally adopt him. Clearly, the Respondents loved the Petitioner and as a result provided him with shelter, food, and clothing and in fact bought him more than one vehicle for his personal use, The Respondents consider the Petitioner as part of their family and over time the Petitioner referred to Respondents as “mom” and “dad,” and the Respondent's occasionally referred to the Petitioner as a son, In fact, they have always felt that the Petitioner was like a son and have used that on occasion but not in a legal sense, Further the efforts to open a Conservatorship only began as a result of Petitioner's opportunity to play college football. ‘There was never an intent to adopt him. When it became clear that the Petitioner could not consider going to the University of Mississippi (“Ole Miss”) as a result of living with the Respondents, the NCAA made it clear that the only way he could attend the Ole Miss if he was part of the Tuohy family in some fashion, Conservatorship was the tool chosen to accomplish this goal. . These Respondents admit thatthe Petitioner did move into their home. The remaining allegations of paragraph 7 are denied. In fact, the statement regarding Petitioner's discovery that he was not adopted, was in February of 2023 is demonstratively false. His 2011 book, / Beat The Odds clearly indicates that he was fully aware that the Tuohys‘were appointed as conservators, In fact, the Tuohys were appointed by Order of the Court date December 7, 2004 as Conservators of the Person. 8. Denied. The conservatorship was formed for the sole purpose of giving the Petitioner an ‘opportunity to choose to go to the school of his choice including Ole Miss. In fact, the ‘Tuohys never signed any contract for the Petitioner, including the hiring and/or firing of Various sports agents, his professional football contracts, or any other business that he may have had over the course of time. The Respondents may or may not have been required fo sign scholarship papers when he attended Ole Miss. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Respondents admit that various websites may have referred to the Petitioner as an adopted son. The Tuohys when referring to Michael as a son was done so in the colloquial sense and they have never intended that reference to be viewed with legal implication. The Respondents vehemently deny that any of these Tepresentations caused any imreparable harm, loss either past present or future, or damages to the Petitioner. 10, These Respondents vehemently deny the allegations of paragraph 10. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The Respondents signed but never negotiated any contract with Twentieth Century Fox or others. Any arrangements regarding the movie The Blind Side were done and through Michael Lewis, author of the book The Blind Side. 13. Denied. Respondents received a portion of the money paid to Michael Lewis which was something less than $225,00.00. 14, These Respondents can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 14 but would | { i demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. The insinuation thatPetitioner's signature was signed by the Tuohys is vehemently denied. The Respondents had nothing to do with Petitioner's contract regarding The Blind Side, In fact, when Mr. Lewis was in the process of selling The Blind Side the family met regarding the distribution of any proceeds from the movie. The Petitioner was likewise included in this meeting. All of the Tuohy family including the Petitioner agreed to this arrangement where each party would get 20% of the proceeds paid. 15, These allegations regarding the signature of “Michael Oher” being obtained by forgery, trickery or otherwise, is vehemently denied, 16. Admitted. The allegation fails to recognize that agreements were entered into during such time as Petitioner was a college athlete. Subsequent to the Petitioner finishing his eligibility at Ole Miss, the Respondents approached the Petitioner and indicated they could rearrange the funds to be paid from the movie to be sent directly to him which would have required Petitioner to take some action. He was happy with the arrangement and told the Respondents to leave the arrangements as they were. 17. The Respondents would admit that they received a $200,000.00 donation to their foundation. Likewise, the Petitioner had an opportunity to receive the exact same amount of money, $200,000.00, to be placed in a foundation or the charity of his choice. In fact, such a foundation was created by Debra Branan, attomey at law, but the Petitioner failed to take the necessary action to initiate the foundation despite the recommendations of the Respondents and Ms. Branan. 18, These Respondents would rely upon the Order as the Order speaks for itself. | 19. Respondents stand ready, willing, and able to terminate the conservatorship by consent at any time,20, Admitted. 21, Admitted. These Respondents would further show unto the Court that the Petitioner has never made any request to terminate the conservatorship either in writing or orally. 22. Respondents admit they have never filed accountings. In fact, Respondents were appointed as Conservator of the Person with no estate or assets. Therefore, the Court has neyer required any accountings. No notices have ever been issued by the Clerk of the Court requiring any accounting. 23. The Respondents deny the allegations made in paragraph 23 and demand strict proof. thereof if their rights are to be affected. 24, The Respondents deny the allegations made in paragraph 24 and demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. 25. Respondents stand ready to terminate the conservatorship by consent, 26. Respondents stand ready to terminate the conservatorship at any time. 27. Denied. These Respondents do not have the knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 27. The Respondents would state unto the Court that the conservatorship was necessary to satisfy the requirements of the NCAA so that Petitioner could consider attending Ole Miss if that wes the school of his choice. 28, The Respondents would state unto the Court that they have always acted in the best interest of the Petitioner. Further, the Respondents were appointed as Conservators of the Person. 29. The Respondents are without information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 29 and would demand strict proof thereof if their rights are to be affected. The Respondents would go on to say that all funds received from the movie The Blind Sidehave been equally divided among the Respondents, their two children, and the Petitioner. Jtis important to note that Petitioner's share was paid to Respondents who paid the taxes due on these funds for some period of time but still cut a check for a full share (20%) to Petitioner. 30. These Respondents deny that they breached any duties owed to the Petitioner. 31. Denied. These Respondents would deny that there is any need for injunctive relief. 32. Denied. Now having fully responded to the Petition, hese Respondents request that the Court deny all the relief sought by the Petitioner. The Respondents are ready, willing, and able to enter into a ‘Consent Order terminating the conservatorship and that they be allowed to go forward with their reasonable costs. Respect pbmite, ‘LIN & FISHMAN, P.C. Randall’, Fishman, Esq, (BPR #7097) Ballin, Ballin & Fishman PC 200 Jefferson Ave,, Ste. 1250 Memphis, TN 38103-2328 fi bt n FARESE, FARESE & FARESE Steve Farese, Esq. 122 Church Ave Ashland, MS 38603 Attorneys for RespondentsCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE » Ihe undersigned, hereby certify that on this the (day of September, 023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response has been sent via the Court's ECF system, U.S. Mail and/or electronic mail to the following: Anne Johnson, Esq. John W. ("Don") Barrett , Esq. Butler, Sevier, Hinsley & Reid, PLLC Sterling Aldridge, Esq, 530 Oak Court Drive, Suite 100 Barrett Law Group, P,A. Memphis, TN 38117-3722 404 Court Square [email protected] Lexington, MS 39095-3632 [email protected] J, Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. [email protected] Strauch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC The Freedom Center Richard Barrett, Esq. 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Law Office of Richard R, Barrett, PLLC Nashville, TN 27203-3513 2086 Old Taylor Rd., Suite 1011 [email protected] Oxford, MS 38655-5500 [email protected] J. FISHMAN i | |