Exploring the Legal Implications of Michael Oher's Decision to Avoid Power of Attorney in Favor of Conservatorship

Michael Oher, the former NFL player who grew up in a challenging environment, faced difficult decisions regarding his legal and financial affairs during his formative years. The choice between using a power of attorney (POA) and opting for a conservatorship presented unique legal challenges. In this article, we delve into the nuances of these choices and why Oher may have opted for a conservatorship over a power of attorney in the context of his relationship with the Tuohys and NCAA rules.

The Difference Between Power of Attorney and Conservatorship

A Power of Attorney (POA) is a legal document that authorizes a person (the attorney-in-fact or agent) to act on behalf of another person (the principal) in financial and legal matters. However, a POA is only valid while the principal is capable of making decisions. If the principal becomes incapacitated, the POA typically becomes void, and a conservatorship may need to be established.

A conservatorship, on the other hand, is a legal arrangement where a court appoints a conservator to manage the financial and personal affairs of an individual who is deemed to be unable to manage these affairs because of incapacity or lack of legal competence. This arrangement is more formal and provides a safety net for individuals who may not be capable of managing their own affairs.

Why Oher Chose Conservatorship

Michael Oher chose to establish a conservatorship for several legal and strategic reasons. One key reason is the difference in financial obligations and legal responsibilities. A POA is often used to manage the day-to-day finances and certain legal matters, but it does not create a formal legal relationship with financial accountability. In contrast, a conservatorship establishes a clear legal relationship where the conservator has a fiduciary duty to manage the assets of the incapacitated individual.

From a legal standpoint, a POA requires the principal to be competent to contract at the time the power is granted. If Oher had chosen a POA with the Tuohys, it would have required him to be of sound mind and capable of making informed decisions at the time the agreement was entered into. However, a conservatorship does not have this requirement, as it is a court-ordered arrangement that bypasses the need for consent from an incapacitated individual.

Impact on NCAA Regulations

The relationship between Michael Oher and the Tuohys was a tumultuous one, and there were concerns about NCAA booster recruiting violations. A POA might have been seen as a more formal agreement that could lead to accusations of improper financial dealings or even recruiting violations, particularly in the context of NCAA rules. A conservatorship, however, was a more discreet and legally binding arrangement that would not raise red flags in the same way.

Furthermore, a conservatorship could provide a legitimate reason for the conservator (which could be a member of the Tuohys) to manage Oher's financial affairs, thus justifying expenditures that might otherwise be seen as recruiting violations. By establishing a conservatorship, Oher could ensure that the NCAA could not claim that the financial arrangements were just for the purpose of recruiting.

Conclusion

The decision to choose a conservatorship over a POA was a strategic choice made by Michael Oher, taking into account the legal implications, financial obligations, and the need to navigate issues surrounding the Tuohys and NCAA regulations. This move helped to ensure that his financial and personal affairs were managed in a way that complied with legal standards and maintained his compliance with NCAA rules.