Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
In the spring of 1989, D declined an invitation from P to meet him at the Indianapolis airport. They continued to talk on the phone for some time. On September 2, 1989, D married his wife. In December 1989, D traveled to Chicago where P and D had unprotected sex. In November 1990, D stayed with Jordan in Phoenix, Arizona, where they again had unprotected sex. In early 1991, D learned that she was pregnant. D kept silent. The Bulls were on their way to their first NBA championship. Product endorsements were earning P large sums of money. D was 'troubled' when she told him she was pregnant with his child in the spring of 1991. He was worried about destroying his public image. D further alleged that P demanded that she abort the baby, but because of her personal beliefs, she refused. In the spring of 1991, P offered to pay her ' $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.' D accepted. D agreed to forbear filing a public paternity action against him and agreed to keep their romantic relationship confidential. In July 1991, the child was born. P paid certain hospital bills and medical costs and paid D $250,000 for 'her mental pain and anguish arising from her relationship with him.' P announced his retirement but returned in March of 1995 to play for the Bulls. In September 1998, D reminded P of his obligation to pay her the money under their agreement. P reaffirmed his agreement to pay her the $5 million. A few months later, P retired from professional basketball again. Two years later, P denied that he had promised to pay $5 million. P filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against D, a woman with whom he had an intimate relationship. P alleged that D was attempting to extort money by threatening to publicly expose their relationship unless she was paid $5 million. P alleged that D had previously extorted $250,000 from him under threat of publicly exposing their relationship. D denied that he agreed to pay $5 million pursuant to a purported second agreement and sought a declaratory judgment that her demand for payment was unenforceable because extortionate agreements violate public policy, there was no writing and hence a violation of the statute of frauds, no consideration because she was already under an obligation not to publicly expose their relationship. D admitted D paid her $250,000 but stated that it was for her mental pain and anguish arising from their romantic relationship. D filed a verified counterclaim for breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract. The trial court dismissed Jordan's complaint and denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court further dismissed the counterclaim, finding the agreement to be extortionate and against public policy. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co