Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
There's something ineffably sad about the petition filed by former NFL star Michael Oher against Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy. The story of how the white family took the Black teenager into their home and raised him as their own was turned to magic in the film "The Blind Side," based on the Michael Lewis book. Sandra Bullock won the Academy Award for best actress.
But here's what Oher now says to the Tennessee probate court: "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." It's the Britney Spears case all over again; except that Spears at least knew that she was under a conservatorship. Oher says he didn't.
Is all of it true? Some of it? None of it? We're outsiders, and can't know. We shouldn't rush to judgment, and members of the family have denied taking advantage of Oher. But if, as Oher alleges, he was never adopted by the Tuohys — if instead they've been his conservators and used him to make money for themselves — then the legal consequences of his petition could be considerable.
Conservators owe a fiduciary duty to the person entrusted to their care — known as the "ward" — to manage the ward's assets only for the ward's own benefit. Violating the duty can bring a heavy penalty. In 2013, a Tennessee lawyer was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he admitted stealing some $1.4 million from clients for whom he served as conservator.
Moreover, in Tennessee, as in most states, it's not up to the ward to prove that any particular transaction was inconsistent with the conservatorship. If the conservator makes money from the ward's assets, the burden of proof runs the other way.
What this means in practice is that if, as the petition alleges, Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy benefited financially from deals they made while serving as Oher's co-conservators, the burden isn't on Oher to show wrongdoing; it's on the Tuohys to show that the transactions were legitimate. And legitimacy, again, means that the transactions were in the best interest not of the Tuohys, but of Oher.