XBGMER
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2003
- Messages
- 4,487
- Reaction score
- 0
Jordan Lawsuit Goes Back To Court
Jordan Sued Former Lover In 2002
POSTED: 6:57 pm CST February 3, 2005
UPDATED: 7:43 am CST February 4, 2005
CHICAGO -- The Illinois Appellate Court Thursday reversed a lower court's dismissal of a case involving former Chicago Bulls guard Michael Jordan and a woman with whom he was intimate.
NBC5's Rob Elgas reported that the decision states that the verbal agreement between Jordan and the woman, Karla Knafel, needs to be reviewed again by the circuit court.
In the ruling, the appellate court said that without findings of fact from a trial, the alleged agreement between Jordan and Knafel could not immediately be determined to constitute extortion because Knafel was giving up her right to file a paternity suit in exchange for the $5 million, in addition to remaining quiet about the affair.
"Not all contracts for silence violate public policy," according to the appellate decision. "Rather, there is a presumption of validity and enforceability attaching to settlement agreements which include confidentiality provisions."
"Knafel's agreement to refrain from suing for paternity coupled with her agreement to remain quiet about the affair is not inherently coercive or exploitive or motivated by an improper influence," according to the appellate decision.
"Rather, taking the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Knafel, as we must do when reviewing a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the agreement could be construed as a good-faith settlement of her paternity claim with a confidentiality provision which is not violative of public policy," according to the decision.
The court also disagreed with Jordan's claim that the alleged contract between him and Knafel was not enforceable because he is not the father of Knafel's child.
The paternity information came up in the pleadings on his original motion for immediate judgment, and Jordan asked the court to consider the additional information and determine the contract void.
But the appellate court agreed with the lower court refusal to consider this question, saying the required affidavits were never submitted to prove Jordan was not the father, despite the assertions made in pleadings and additional filings.
"We agree with the trial court that when examining the face of the pleadings, the complaint is deficient," according to the appellate ruling.
The appeals court did affirm the lower court's dismissal of another motion from Jordan, which had asked the court to consider assertions added during pleadings on the first motion and then decide in his favor.
In 2002, Jordan sued Knafel, claiming she was extorting $5 million for her silence after already accepting $250,000 to keep quiet about an affair between them.
Knafel countersued, claiming Jordan paid her $250,000 and promised her $5 million after he retired from basketball in return for her not filing a paternity suit and keeping the affair confidential. It later was found the pregnancy was not from relations with Jordan, according to the ruling.
After hearing initial pleadings on Jordan's request for an immediate declaratory judgment in his favor, the circuit court dismissed both the suit and the countersuit, saying Jordan failed to allege an "actual controversy" for the court to consider, while Knafel's alleged verbal contract was unenforceable, according to the appellate ruling.
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Jordan's motion seeking declaratory judgment, saying the lower court should have let the facts from a trial help determine if Jordan's suit showed an "actual controversy."
The appellate decision also reversed the lower court's dismissal of Knafel's counterclaim, saying facts brought out in a trial might show an enforceable contract existed between her and Jordan.
Knafel's attorney, Michael T. Hannafan, said he was "delighted" the cases were remanded for new proceedings.
"We are certain that under long-established Illinois law, a settlement agreement with a confidentiality provision is valid, enforceable and legal," said Michael Hannafan, Knafel's attorney. "There are probably hundreds of thousands of settlement contracts and settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses."
Jordan's attorney, Frederick Sperling, said he did not agree with the decision.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision. There is no good reason why Illinois should be any more permissive of agreements to buy silence than any of the other states that refuse to enforce agreements of this kind," Sperling said.
"We expect Michael Jordan's position to be fully vindicated. Knafel knows that Michael is not the father of her child, and she knows who the real father is," he said.
Sperling said Jordan's defense team planned to file a petition to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The appellate court ruling said Knafel met Jordan in the spring of 1989 in Indianapolis, where she was performing in a band and Jordan was playing with the Bulls against the Indiana Pacers.
Jordan and Knafel first held long-distance telephone conversations, and had sexual encounters in December 1989 -- a few months after Jordan married his wife, Juanita -- and in November 1990, according to the ruling.
Knafel found out she was pregnant in early 1991 and believed the baby was Jordan's, but did not raise the issue with Jordan until later that year, the ruling said.
Knafel claimed Jordan offered her a proposed settlement of "$5 million when he retired from professional basketball in return for her agreement not to file a paternity suit against him in a court of law and for her agreement to keep their romantic involvement publicly confidential," which she accepted, the ruling said.
The child was born in July 1991, and Jordan paid $250,000 for her "mental pain and anguish" resulting from their relationship, according to the ruling.
Knafel claimed she approached Jordan again in September 1998, reminding him of the alleged agreement, which again he said he would keep, and their respective attorneys discussed the matter two years later, the ruling said.
Jordan denied he had promised to pay $5 million, the ruling said. Then, since Jordan was playing for the Washington Wizards at the time, Knafel claimed an anticipatory breach of the 1991 contract and its reaffirmation in 1998, according to the ruling.
Jordan filed his complaint for declaratory judgment against Knafel on Oct. 23, 2002, and Knafel then filed the counterclaim demanding the money, the ruling said.
Images: Jordan Lawsuit Goes Back To Court
Source: http://www.nbc5.com
Jordan Sued Former Lover In 2002
POSTED: 6:57 pm CST February 3, 2005
UPDATED: 7:43 am CST February 4, 2005
CHICAGO -- The Illinois Appellate Court Thursday reversed a lower court's dismissal of a case involving former Chicago Bulls guard Michael Jordan and a woman with whom he was intimate.
NBC5's Rob Elgas reported that the decision states that the verbal agreement between Jordan and the woman, Karla Knafel, needs to be reviewed again by the circuit court.
In the ruling, the appellate court said that without findings of fact from a trial, the alleged agreement between Jordan and Knafel could not immediately be determined to constitute extortion because Knafel was giving up her right to file a paternity suit in exchange for the $5 million, in addition to remaining quiet about the affair.
"Not all contracts for silence violate public policy," according to the appellate decision. "Rather, there is a presumption of validity and enforceability attaching to settlement agreements which include confidentiality provisions."
"Knafel's agreement to refrain from suing for paternity coupled with her agreement to remain quiet about the affair is not inherently coercive or exploitive or motivated by an improper influence," according to the appellate decision.
"Rather, taking the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Knafel, as we must do when reviewing a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the agreement could be construed as a good-faith settlement of her paternity claim with a confidentiality provision which is not violative of public policy," according to the decision.
The court also disagreed with Jordan's claim that the alleged contract between him and Knafel was not enforceable because he is not the father of Knafel's child.
The paternity information came up in the pleadings on his original motion for immediate judgment, and Jordan asked the court to consider the additional information and determine the contract void.
But the appellate court agreed with the lower court refusal to consider this question, saying the required affidavits were never submitted to prove Jordan was not the father, despite the assertions made in pleadings and additional filings.
"We agree with the trial court that when examining the face of the pleadings, the complaint is deficient," according to the appellate ruling.
The appeals court did affirm the lower court's dismissal of another motion from Jordan, which had asked the court to consider assertions added during pleadings on the first motion and then decide in his favor.
In 2002, Jordan sued Knafel, claiming she was extorting $5 million for her silence after already accepting $250,000 to keep quiet about an affair between them.
Knafel countersued, claiming Jordan paid her $250,000 and promised her $5 million after he retired from basketball in return for her not filing a paternity suit and keeping the affair confidential. It later was found the pregnancy was not from relations with Jordan, according to the ruling.
After hearing initial pleadings on Jordan's request for an immediate declaratory judgment in his favor, the circuit court dismissed both the suit and the countersuit, saying Jordan failed to allege an "actual controversy" for the court to consider, while Knafel's alleged verbal contract was unenforceable, according to the appellate ruling.
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Jordan's motion seeking declaratory judgment, saying the lower court should have let the facts from a trial help determine if Jordan's suit showed an "actual controversy."
The appellate decision also reversed the lower court's dismissal of Knafel's counterclaim, saying facts brought out in a trial might show an enforceable contract existed between her and Jordan.
Knafel's attorney, Michael T. Hannafan, said he was "delighted" the cases were remanded for new proceedings.
"We are certain that under long-established Illinois law, a settlement agreement with a confidentiality provision is valid, enforceable and legal," said Michael Hannafan, Knafel's attorney. "There are probably hundreds of thousands of settlement contracts and settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses."
Jordan's attorney, Frederick Sperling, said he did not agree with the decision.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision. There is no good reason why Illinois should be any more permissive of agreements to buy silence than any of the other states that refuse to enforce agreements of this kind," Sperling said.
"We expect Michael Jordan's position to be fully vindicated. Knafel knows that Michael is not the father of her child, and she knows who the real father is," he said.
Sperling said Jordan's defense team planned to file a petition to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The appellate court ruling said Knafel met Jordan in the spring of 1989 in Indianapolis, where she was performing in a band and Jordan was playing with the Bulls against the Indiana Pacers.
Jordan and Knafel first held long-distance telephone conversations, and had sexual encounters in December 1989 -- a few months after Jordan married his wife, Juanita -- and in November 1990, according to the ruling.
Knafel found out she was pregnant in early 1991 and believed the baby was Jordan's, but did not raise the issue with Jordan until later that year, the ruling said.
Knafel claimed Jordan offered her a proposed settlement of "$5 million when he retired from professional basketball in return for her agreement not to file a paternity suit against him in a court of law and for her agreement to keep their romantic involvement publicly confidential," which she accepted, the ruling said.
The child was born in July 1991, and Jordan paid $250,000 for her "mental pain and anguish" resulting from their relationship, according to the ruling.
Knafel claimed she approached Jordan again in September 1998, reminding him of the alleged agreement, which again he said he would keep, and their respective attorneys discussed the matter two years later, the ruling said.
Jordan denied he had promised to pay $5 million, the ruling said. Then, since Jordan was playing for the Washington Wizards at the time, Knafel claimed an anticipatory breach of the 1991 contract and its reaffirmation in 1998, according to the ruling.
Jordan filed his complaint for declaratory judgment against Knafel on Oct. 23, 2002, and Knafel then filed the counterclaim demanding the money, the ruling said.
Images: Jordan Lawsuit Goes Back To Court
Source: http://www.nbc5.com
