Tiger Woods’ Ex-Girlfriend Erica Herman Files Lawsuits After Break-Up [DOCUMENTS]

Tiger Woods’ longtime girlfriend Erica Herman has filed two lawsuits against the golfer in Florida court after the couple’s breakup. The first lawsuit, related to her eviction from their Jupiter Island home, was filed in October 2022. She filed a second lawsuit in Martin County court on March 6, 2023, asking a judge to nullify a nondisclosure agreement Herman signed when she and Woods began dating.

According to court documents obtained by Heavy, Herman has accused Woods, through the trust that is the owner of his Jupiter house, of using deception to unlawfully evict her. The lawsuit was filed against the Jupiter Island Irrevocable Homestead Trust, which was set up by Woods when he purchased his $54 million home in 2006, according to court documents.

In other court documents, Herman’s lawyer claims that the NDA she signed is not enforceable because of the federal Speak Out Act, which prevents nondisclosure agreements from being enforced in cases where there are accusations of sexual assault or sexual harassment. The bipartisan bill was passed by Congress in 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden, according to Forbes.

Herman and Woods first went public with their relationship in 2017. The couple was seen together at the U.S. Open tennis tournament in 2022 and Herman was by Woods’ side with his mother and his children when he was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in March 2022. According to court documents, Woods broke up with Herman on October 13, 2022, and told her she was no longer welcome at his home where she had lived with him for the prior six years.

Woods has not commented about the lawsuits and split from Herman. Heavy has reached out to his lawyer for comment. Herman and her attorney have also not commented about the lawsuits beyond the public court filings.

---

Erica Herman Says She Was Convinced ‘by Trickey’ to Pack a Back for a Short Vacation & Then When She Arrived at the Airport Was Told She Had Been Locked Out of the House, According to the Lawsuit

Erica Herman filed the first lawsuit against Tiger Woods’ trust on October 26, 2022, Martin County, Florida, court records obtained by Heavy show. The full complaint filed by Herman’s lawyers can be read here. The lawsuit accuses the trust of violating the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act. She is seeking more than $30 million in damages, based on the value of the home.

According to the lawsuit, Herman had lived at Woods’ home for six years. The complaint claims Herman entered into an “oral tenancy agreement” with the plaintiffs when she moved into the home and provided “valuable services” during the time when she was living there in exchange for the right to live there for a “certain duration of time.”

“No notice or lawful judicial proceeding was commenced to bring the tenancy to a lawful end,” Herman’s attorney wrote. “Instead the defendant elected to engage in ‘prohibited practices,’ i.e., self-help, casuing serve actual, consequential and severe emotional damages to the plaintiff. The prohibited practices were done intentionally, with premeditation and with malice aforethought,” the lawsuit states.

The complaint adds, “Specifically, by trickery, agents of the defendant convinced the plaintiff to pack a suitcase for a short vacation, and when she arrived at the airport, they told her she had been locked out of her residence, in violation of the oral tenancy agreement and in violation of Florida law. They then informed her she was not allowed to return to her residence and, without legal counsel to aid her in this emotional moment, they utilized a lawyer to conront her with proposals to resolve the wrongdoing they were in the midst of committing.”

Her lawyer wrote, “Defendant’s agents attempted to justify their illegal conduct by paying for a hotel room and certain expenses for a short period of time, having successfully locked plaintiff out of her home and frightened her away from returning. Since then, plaintiff has continually demanded to be allowed back into her home, but defendant’s agents have refused. Even worse, defendant’s agents removed plaintiff’s personal belongings from her residence and misappropriated in excess of $40,000 in cash that belonged to her, making scurrilous and defamtory allegations about how she obtained the money.”

---

Woods’ Trust’s Attorneys Have Sought to Have the Lawsuit Dismissed & Says It Is ‘Gamesmanship’ Resulting From the Breakup

In November 2022, he Jupiter Island Irrevocable Homestead Trust filed a nine-page motion to dismiss Herman’s first lawsuit. It can be read here. “Remarkably, plaintiff alleges that the value of her remaining five-year tenancy is in excess of $30 million — in other words, that in exchange for plaintiff’s services, she was to be provided consideration in excess of $6 million per year,” the trust’s lawyers wrote.

The trust said in its motion to dismiss that Herman does not qualify as a tenant under the Florida law cited in her lawsuit. The trust’s lawyers wrote that Herman’s “claims under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act fail as a matter of law becasue she is not a ‘tenant’ as defined by the act. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to name the proper party defendant because a trust is not a ‘juristic person’ capable of suing or being sued. Rather, the trustee is the proper party.”

The trust’s attorneys also filed a 21-page motion to compel arbitration, which can be read here. The trust’s attorneys wrote, “In reality, Ms. Herman was invited to live in the residence while she was in a relationship with her former boyfriend, Eldrick Woods, who continues to live in the residence with his two children. After Mr. Woods recently terminated the relationship, Ms. Herman was advised that she was no longer welcome in the residence. Ms. Herman responded to the breakup by filing this lawsuit.” They added:

Ms. Herman positions her Complaint as an action against the Trust because she is required to arbitrate “all disputes” with Mr. Woods in a confidential arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. Specifically, at the outset of her relationship with Mr. Woods, Ms. Herman and Mr. Woods entered into a Non-Disclosure And Acknowledgement Agreement dated August 9, 2017 (the “Agreement”), a redacted copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A to reflect a true and correct copy of the agreement to arbitrate. Among other things, the Agreement requires that “any and all disputes, claims or controversies . . . of any kind or nature whatsoever” between Ms. Herman and Mr. Woods are to be resolved by confidential binding arbitration before the AAA. By suing the Trust rather than Mr. Woods, Ms. Herman seeks to evade her obligation to adjudicate her claims in a confidential arbitration and, instead, seeks to gain leverage by litigating her disputes with Mr. Woods in a public forum.

The disputes raised by Ms. Herman in the lawsuit against the Trust are, quite plainly, disputes between Ms. Herman and Mr. Woods. All disputes arise out of the breakup of their relationship and all damages arise in connection with Mr. Woods’ decision not to permit Ms. Herman to reenter his personal residence following their breakup. Accordingly, the disputes raised by Ms. Herman in this action are subject to the broad arbitration provisions in the Agreement and Ms. Herman should be compelled to arbitrate her claims in a confidential proceeding before the AAA as she and Mr. Woods previously agreed.

After Herman filed her lawsuit, Woods started an arbitration proceeding against her, according to court documents. The trust’s lawyers wrote, “By suing the Trust over conduct taken by Mr. Woods and his agents following the breakup, Ms. Herman seeks to flout her obligation to resolve all disputes with Mr. Woods in a confidential binding arbitration. Instead, in the context of litigation and the publicity that is likely to follow, Ms. Herman improperly seeks to leverage a payment from Mr. Woods in an amount that no arbitral forum would ever award. Such gamesmanship should not be tolerated.”

---

Herman’s Lawyers Wrote That She Is ‘Unsure What Other Information About Her Own Life She May Discuss & With Whom’

Herman’s lawyers filed a lawsuit on March 6, 2023, seeking to nullify the NDA. The complaint can be read here. The March 2023 lawsuit is filed directly against Woods, according to court records. Herman has also disputed the NDA in a motion filed in January 2023 in the case against Woods’ trust.

“The plaintiff had a long relationship with the defendant, both professionally and personally,” Herman’s lawyers wrote. “During the course of the plaintiff’s employment for him, the defendant caused the Woods NDA to be executed. A trust controlled by the defendant has taken the position in litigation that the Woods NDA is enforceable against the plaintiff. The trust also disclosed in litigation that the defendant has asserted that the Woods NDA is enforceable against the plaintiff by commencing an arbitration against the plaintiff based on it.”

The complaint adds, “The plaintiff believes that the Woods NDA is invalid and unenforceable. However, these issues are not legally certain and the plaintiff is in current doubt about her and the defendant’s respective obligations and rights, if any, udner the Woods NDA. This uncertainty is acute and important. Because of the aggressive use of the Woods NDA against her by the defendant and the trust under his control, the plaintiff is unsure whether she may disclose, among other things, facts giving rise to various legal claims she believes she has. She is also currently unsure what other information about her own life she may discuss or with whom.”

The lawsuit asks a judge to either declare the NDA invalid or define the scope of it allowing Herman the “freedom to disclose” things including “her own experiences,” “the experiences of her family members,” “photographs and recordings of herselfa nd her family members,” and “information held, witnessed or learned by people who are not covered by the NDA,” along with “information from sources other than the defendant,” and “information on topics that the defendant has discussed or otherwise disclosed to other people who are not covered by the Woods NDA.”

The lawsuit also asks to clarify if the NDA covers, “information required or permitted to be disclosed by law, regulation or rules,” and “information responding to statements that the defendant has made or published about her or others to prove the falsity or misleading nature of these statements.”

0 Comments