Tony Finau being sued for $16 million

[Pepperturbo]

5 hours ago, blueonblack said:

May I ask: have you seen it where someone made a deal with minors and/or their parents and it held up, though? I think that is the only scenario where this guy's case gets case law traction. If there were some binding deal with of age persons, then... all bets off. Would you say?

No because we don't deal with minors...  But if the parents support and agree with a verbal contract with their children, the deal essentially is with the parents then moves to children when they come of age or emancipation.  The guy in question made it clear he waited till they became of age, so it makes sense.  I am not a lawyer but have a firm on retainer.

[Pepperturbo]

1 hour ago, Sean2 said:

I made that point earlier. We don't know nearly enough to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong. 

 

Yep, we don't know.  We never will, least not until it's decided in court.  If its settled out of court, we likely won't know anything.  It's not even possible to decide right or wrong, without injecting bias.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, aenemated said:

 

I'm a founder of a company that got started with seed funding. 

 

And there's absolutely no universe where I'd have given up a 20% stake for a measly half a mil. Not even freakin close. 

 

Hmmmmmm,,,,,, let me think now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

80% of $1M per year is,,,,,,,, $800,000

 

100% of 0 is,,,,,,,,,

 

Sorry, I'm not giving up a 20% stake. Not worth it. 

[blueonblack]

4 hours ago, Nail_It said:

I don't see a notary?

[blueonblack]

4 hours ago, Nail_It said:

oops, double.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by blueonblack

[Ferguson]

18 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

When I hear about the guy going after Tony, I think of this Fat Slob... 

 

 

 

Two guys I never trusted, this guy and the eye patch guy from the band, Dr. Hook. 

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

18 hours ago, Nail_It said:

Interesting, those all look the same.... 

 

[Vinsanity23]

On 9/28/2020 at 10:50 AM, blueonblack said:

I can see wanting the $592K back at least, but this guy comes off as greedy jerk numero uno going after $16 million of his 22 million?

What did he swing the clubs for him too?

 

Sad to think this could be distracting Tony in any way right now. When you hear things like this going on in the background, it must have an effect on their play?

Hope the judge gives the guy the bare minimum of what he is LEGALLY entitled to. And has to pay his own legal fees out of that sum.

Superfluous suit to say the least. Will the judge audibly laugh at the requested amount is the only question....

 

He's rich but he sounds like an idiot. How'd he make that cash? He might have wanted to just stay quiet after this...

My thoughts exactly. He loans $592K, and expect 16 million + interest (because that's roughly 20% of his worth)? Where does he come up with this math? I could see arguing over the initial sum+interest, even though you probably still don't have a chance in a verbal contract in court. Going after 20% of someone's worth is absurd, especially in this situation, where it is exponentially higher than the original sum.

[Vinsanity23]

2 minutes ago, vstensrud23 said:

My thoughts exactly. He loans $592K, and expect 16 million + interest (because that's roughly 20% of his worth)? Where does he come up with this math? I could see arguing over the initial sum+interest, even though you probably still don't have a chance in a verbal contract in court. Going after 20% of someone's worth is absurd, especially in this situation, where it is exponentially higher than the original sum.

And then to further this, if you wanted to truly go the investor route and he wanted a 20% return, why act now?! Finau is enormously talented and will surely win more, only raising his worth. 20% now vs. 20% 5 years from now? Sketchy is written all over this whole deal.

[blueonblack]

Isn't this outrageous sum representative of 72% of his worth, not 20%?

(Math was never my strong suit, so be gentle.)

[nsxguy]

22 minutes ago, blueonblack said:

Isn't this outrageous sum representative of 72% of his worth, not 20%?

(Math was never my strong suit, so be gentle.)

 

There's a difference between "worth" and "winnings".  

[blueonblack]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

There's a difference between "worth" and "winnings".  

Thanks. Not sure the eye roll is necessary? Feel good now?

[nsxguy]

Just now, blueonblack said:

Thanks. Not sure the eye roll is necessary? Feel good now?

 

Yes, actually I do. Thanks for your (apparent) concern. 👍

[blueonblack]

Quite the welcome. And welcome to ignore.

[nsxguy]

3 minutes ago, blueonblack said:

Quite the welcome. And welcome to ignore.

 

I just don't know,,,,,, how,,,,,, I'll,,,,,, survive,,,,,,, 

[nsxguy]

 

 

41 minutes ago, vstensrud23 said:

And then to further this, if you wanted to truly go the investor route and he wanted a 20% return, why act now?! Finau is enormously talented and will surely win more, only raising his worth. 20% now vs. 20% 5 years from now? Sketchy is written all over this whole deal.

 

I see you've seemed to have accepted the investor scenario.

 

But "Why act now ?" The timeline in the account isn't entirely clear but apparently he met the Finau family in 1997. I may have missed it but it's not clear exactly when the investment was made but it was somewhere between 1997 and the mid 00s, at least 14 years ago, but more likely close to 20 since Finau's now 31.

 

So 20 YEARS later and (presumably) the guy hasn't gotten anything back yet and you ask "why act now ?" ?

 

Presumably an investor is looking for some scheduled(?) returns along the line, or at least once his gamble starts paying off, no ? I mean Finau has won $20M, and has been winning for a while now, no ?

 

Anything paid yet ? Don't know. Should there have been ? I think "probably" is a good guess.

 

So how long should Mr What's-his-name wait ? These lawsuits don't come out of thin air. They come about when the 2 parties have reach an impasse.

 

As far as ROI goes, $16M over 20 years is an annual return on investment (or compound interest if you prefer) of 17.84%  

 

Really good ? Yup. Sure beats a savings account.

 

Is it an exceptional ROI on SUCH a risky investment ? I wonder,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

[Vinsanity23]

19 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

I see you've seemed to have accepted the investor scenario.

 

But "Why act now ?" The timeline in the account isn't entirely clear but apparently he met the Finau family in 1997. I may have missed it but it's not clear exactly when the investment was made but it was somewhere between 1997 and the mid 00s, at least 14 years ago, but more likely close to 20 since Finau's now 31.

 

So 20 YEARS later and (presumably) the guy hasn't gotten anything back yet and you ask "why act now ?" ?

 

Presumably an investor is looking for some scheduled(?) returns along the line, or at least once his gamble starts paying off, no ? I mean Finau has won $20M, and has been winning for a while now, no ?

 

Anything paid yet ? Don't know. Should there have been ? I think "probably" is a good guess.

 

So how long should Mr What's-his-name wait ? These lawsuits don't come out of thin air. They come about when the 2 parties have reach an impasse.

 

As far as ROI goes, $16M over 20 years is an annual return on investment (or compound interest if you prefer) of 17.84%  

 

Really good ? Yup. Sure beats a savings account.

 

Is it an exceptional ROI on SUCH a risky investment ? I wonder,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

Well I think your take on most aspects of this make a lot of sense, I think the overarching theme of a verbal agreement with a minor would negate most of this, no? Even if it were with his parents, it's still a verbal agreement which I would think would be incredibly difficult to hold up in court, especially given the 20 year period (how much has the story changed). I in no way claim to be a lawyer or anything close, just applying what little common sense I thought I had.

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, vstensrud23 said:

Well I think your take on most aspects of this make a lot of sense, I think the overarching theme of a verbal agreement with a minor would negate most of this, no? Even if it were with his parents, it's still a verbal agreement which I would think would be incredibly difficult to hold up in court, especially given the 20 year period (how much has the story changed). I in no way claim to be a lawyer or anything close, just applying what little common sense I thought I had.

 

Don't recall the account saying if it was verbal or not or with whom it was made.

 

Again, details are lacking. And I expect many verbal contracts are difficult to enforce, especially if it gets to court. Guess the judge and/or jury end up deciding who's telling the truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

[bscinstnct]

If the guy can substantiate he gave the family half a mil, it’s worth giving it back to go away.
 

In fact, they should give it back with some  interest if there was any sort of agreement, written or not.

 

 

[bladehunter]

Late to this party. Seems to me like a classic case of asking for the moon in hopes of a settlement offer right ?        If there was an agreement, pay him the principle plus a couple points to settle.  If no agreement and it’s an extortion job .... don’t negotiate , spend some to make the case . Today’s court isn’t going to award him anything without some proof.  

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Late to this party. Seems to me like a classic case of asking for the moon in hopes of a settlement offer right ?        If there was an agreement, pay him the principle plus a couple points to settle.  If no agreement and it’s an extortion job .... don’t negotiate , spend some to make the case . Today’s court isn’t going to award him anything without some proof.  

 

Blade! What’s happening?

 

I have no idea if such an agreement, where someone makes a deal with a parent to pay a child’s expenses and then can collect a percentage of their professional earnings, is legal. 

 

But here is what the suit alleges:

 

“The suit claims Hola paid for the Finau family’s mortgage payments, medical insurance, a new car as well as golf-related travel expenses for Tony and Gipper, including living expenses for the Finau family to reside in Florida for approximately a year while they received lessons from renowned golf instructor David Leadbetter.

 

 

Later, Hola helped form the Finau Corporation to help promote the young golfers and was designated as the corporation’s registered agent. 

The expenses, according to the suit, added up to $592,371.37 over several years.

The suit asks for that amount, plus interest and for compensatory damages of “at least $16 million, plus interest,” which the suit claims represents approximately 20% of the two golfers’ career earnings to date. Hola claims he was promised 20% of the Finaus’ future professional earnings.”

 

So, I imagine, unless the guy is a total buffoon, he can document the payments he allegedly made. I mean, he states the amount to last penny, .37 cents 🤣.

But does he have a written agreement and would it be enforceable?

 

Im of the mind that a “deal is a deal” as opposed to “cheat or be cheated”. So, if TFs parents made a deal, whatever it was and whether or not in writing, it should be honored within reason.

 

https://www.deseret.com/sports/2020/9/25/21456136/tony-finau-pga-tour-molonai-hola-utah-utes-football-sued-16-million-dollars

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by bscinstnct

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Late to this party. Seems to me like a classic case of asking for the moon in hopes of a settlement offer right ?        If there was an agreement, pay him the principle plus a couple points to settle.  If no agreement and it’s an extortion job .... don’t negotiate , spend some to make the case . Today’s court isn’t going to award him anything without some proof.  

 

Wait, what ?

 

Pay him the principle plus a couple of points ?

 

What about paying him what the agreement says he deserves ?

[bscinstnct]

17 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Wait, what ?

 

Pay him the principle plus a couple of points ?

 

What about paying him what the agreement says he deserves ?

I believe that if one party has unequal bargaining power, it can call enforceability into question. Not to mention if TF is accountable for his parents actions when he was a minor. If that’s even relevant.

 

But, for example,

 

If someone is about to lose their house and another agrees to pay their mortgage if he gets 20% of the people’s kids earnings for life, is that reasonable? This is just an example, not saying it has anything to do with this case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GolfTurkey]

sorry if these points have already been made...the amount being asked for is extortionate but nobody is going to invest in potential sports stars for a couple points. 

 

Most of the time you will be writing off (at least large chunks of) your investment so on the odd occasion that it pays off it has to be worthwhile.

 

It's more akin to a VC investment where someone with money ends up owning a significant part of the company for what retrospectively looks like a small amount. It's fair because most of the ventures will fall flat. It is completely different to a bank lending someone money at a couple percent for a mortgage

 

[bladehunter]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Wait, what ?

 

Pay him the principle plus a couple of points ?

 

What about paying him what the agreement says he deserves ?

Is there an enforceable agreement in place ?  

[bladehunter]

On 9/28/2020 at 7:20 PM, Krt22 said:

I am not a lawyer, but I enjoy these sorts of gymnastics. Even if Tony's family was involved, the outcome likely will be the same, as one cannot legally sign away the future wages of their child. Someone already stated it on the first page, if this agreement was as it was all stated, it would be too separate contracts. One with the parents and one with TF once he turned 18 and consented to the agreement. 

This ^. knowing nothing else this has to be the case or their isn’t a case against TF. Maybe his mom. But you can’t for instance take out a credit card on your kids name , run up a $100k balance and not pay it.  Then have him pay it after he’s 18.    I know this first hand.  It won’t stick.  And it didn’t take much litigation to  make that point.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by bladehunter

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Is there an enforceable agreement in place ?  

 

I don't know but what's that got to do with the price of tea ?

 

You said "If there was an agreement, pay him the principle plus a couple points to settle".

 

The question was then "What about paying him what the agreement says he deserves ?"

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by nsxguy

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

I don't know but what's that got to do with the price of tea ?

 

You said "If there was an agreement, pay him the principle plus a couple points to settle".

 

The question was then "What about paying him what the agreement says he deserves ?"

 

 

I suppose to clarify I meant a verbal agreement which at this point is disputed or undisclosed in specifics.  Meaning I don’t expect him to pay off a guy  from 20 years ago based on a handshake deal that his dad made that may or may not have had specific and agreed upon parameters.  
 

by that I mean if the guy loaned money and it was meant to be paid back but was not set out in an iron clad way .... I’d pay him back plus a reasonable amount of interest.  Because that’s morally the right thing to do.
 

 If it’s a loan on paper to his parents.  I don’t see how Tony is on the hook legally.  He’s only potentially morally obligated  to cover his mom.  And that’s very much situation dependent.  
 

  In short I’m saying do the right thing if it’s true there was an agreement that Tony was involved in that was understood and clear.  If it’s a he said she said that’s changed 26 times in 20 years , then I think repaying the loan amount at this point might be generous. Since he may not see a cent in court.  
 

There’s too many ways to not get paid in court.  He isn’t a victim of anything.  So no angle there. If he paid them in cash.  It’s going to be hard to prove. Usually those instances are rich guys trying to launder or hide cash by deferring tax liability for many years.  He’s likely in a place during the pandemic where he has lost enough recently to offset this coming back in if he was paid.  Loads of things to consider.  

 

now if he presents a contract witnessed by a 3rd party and signed by tony after age 18 .... all bets are off. But. If that document exists you’d never have heard about this.  Tony would have paid or made arrangements to pay to not have the publicity.  

[nsxguy]

15 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I suppose to clarify I meant a verbal agreement which at this point is disputed or undisclosed in specifics.  Meaning I don’t expect him to pay off a guy  from 20 years ago based on a handshake deal that his dad made that may or may not have had specific and agreed upon parameters.  
 

by that I mean if the guy loaned money and it was meant to be paid back but was not set out in an iron clad way .... I’d pay him back plus a reasonable amount of interest.  Because that’s morally the right thing to do.
 

 If it’s a loan on paper to his parents.  I don’t see how Tony is on the hook legally.  He’s only potentially morally obligated  to cover his mom.  And that’s very much situation dependent.  
 

  In short I’m saying do the right thing if it’s true there was an agreement that Tony was involved in that was understood and clear.  If it’s a he said she said that’s changed 26 times in 20 years , then I think repaying the loan amount at this point might be generous. Since he may not see a cent in court.  
 

There’s too many ways to not get paid in court.  He isn’t a victim of anything.  So no angle there. If he paid them in cash.  It’s going to be hard to prove. Usually those instances are rich guys trying to launder or hide cash by deferring tax liability for many years.  He’s likely in a place during the pandemic where he has lost enough recently to offset this coming back in if he was paid.  Loads of things to consider.  

 

now if he presents a contract witnessed by a 3rd party and signed by tony after age 18 .... all bets are off. But. If that document exists you’d never have heard about this.  Tony would have paid or made arrangements to pay to not have the publicity.  

 

What happened to your A.D.D. ? That might be the longest post you've ever written.

 

There's too much there to unpack and discuss so I'll just note 2 things (you're ALL welcome BTW )

 

"I suppose to clarify I meant a verbal agreement which at this point is disputed or undisclosed in specifics.  Meaning I don’t expect him to pay off a guy  from 20 years ago based on a handshake deal that his dad made that may or may not have had specific and agreed upon parameters"

 

Yes, the agreement, verbal or written, is disputed and undisclosed at this point. But you do realize that a deal is a deal and that an oral contract IS enforceable, no ? So if the Finau parties DID have specific and clear agreements the terms, the deal IS the deal.

 

And I'll admit, as per your last paragraph, that if there was a written agreement we'd possibly not have heard about any lawsuit.

 

Then again, I'm guessing there are many lawsuits, especially involving a minor, and even when spelled out very clearly in writing that end up in court anyway. Where one party or the other is trying to "get out of it", for a wide variety of reasons,,,, which could be the case here. I think it's possible that Finau & family never thought 20% would cost so much.

 

And if there was little to no action taken over the years to collect anything, or even broach the subject at all, I'm guessing the agreement and/or (more likely ?) the $ value, may have been entirely forgotten about by the Finau camp.

 

[bladehunter]

5 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

What happened to your A.D.D. ? That might be the longest post you've ever written.

 

There's too much there to unpack and discuss so I'll just note 2 things (you're ALL welcome BTW )

 

"I suppose to clarify I meant a verbal agreement which at this point is disputed or undisclosed in specifics.  Meaning I don’t expect him to pay off a guy  from 20 years ago based on a handshake deal that his dad made that may or may not have had specific and agreed upon parameters"

 

Yes, the agreement, verbal or written, is disputed and undisclosed at this point. But you do realize that a deal is a deal and that an oral contract IS enforceable, no ? So if the Finau parties DID have specific and clear agreements the terms, the deal IS the deal.

 

And I'll admit, as per your last paragraph, that if there was a written agreement we'd possibly not have heard about any lawsuit.

 

Then again, I'm guessing there are many lawsuits, especially involving a minor, and even when spelled out very clearly in writing that end up in court anyway. Where one party or the other is trying to "get out of it", for a wide variety of reasons,,,, which could be the case here. I think it's possible that Finau & family never thought 20% would cost so much.

 

And if there was little to no action taken over the years to collect anything, or even broach the subject at all, I'm guessing the agreement and/or (more likely ?) the $ value, may have been entirely forgotten about by the Finau camp.

 

Sure I don’t really dispute any of that. Just that a oral agreement is enforceable in theory but in practice it’s going to take some witnessing or very strong corroborating evidence. Like an email or text stream over a long period of time that parallels  the verbal parts  . This is highly unlikely from 20 years ago.