I have read where a few people think Retzlaff should sue his accuser. Doubtful his accuser has any assets and typically attorneys file civil lawsuits and take a contingency fee which is a percentage of the settlement. Number 1 this girl is not going to fork over some cash voluntarily. She probably doesn’t have much and since Retzlaff’s attorney would know that the only way he would file the suit is if Retzlaff paid court costs, and also attorneys fees at whatever rate his attorney charges. That could get costly since they would have to drag the girl into court and get a judgment ( no guarantee of that ). The suit would drag on at Retzlaff’s personal expense if his attorney wouldn’t handle it on a contingency fee basis.
Number 2, I suspect Jake is glad to have this over with. A counter lawsuit would keep the negative publicity alive for who knows how long.
Number 3 Jake brought this on himself in part when he took his pants off and broke the honor code. No hanky panky, no lawsuit. Don’t get me wrong, I find Retzlaff quite likable and don’t believe he deserved to be falsely accused of such a heinous crime, but when you sin and attempt to hide it bad things happen. I still feel bad for him.
I get the sentiment to want to make the girl pay but I don’t think expecting this to happen is based in reality. If guys want to fornicate without consequences then they need to play somewhere other than BYU and hope they don’t get accused of rape.
My point was that laws should change penalizing lawyers for being frivolous lawsuits that there is no evidence to bring the suit. Has nothing to do with court costs. Just a planned penalty fee of $25,000 for bringing the lawsuit.
Who would determine whether a suit is frivolous? Would some judge just make that decision? There would have to be hearing and evidence presented to determine that and that would cost somebody.
Yes, I read your assumption that the current girlfriend is probably not the one from 2 years ago. But honestly, you do not know that for sure, do you? That is an assumption on your part.
My main point was that Rubicon assumed because JR was loose with his morals, that his girlfriend who probably is LDS (which we do not know for sure) lowered her moral standards simply because they date a non-member. Since I have personally been affected by a LDS person judging me because of the same issue, I found it offensive.
The point of him suing would be to give her a taste of her own medicine and force her to declare bankruptcy to void the judgement or settlement. Retzlaff would have to pay court and attorneys fees, the return would be pure revenge (but not monetary).
Jake can afford this out of his matzo ball endorsement deal and whatever else we paid him.
You’re probably right about it not being worth it. I wonder if his attorney could have dangled this possibility and asked for her to make a public statement basically saying she lied about everything and was just trying to gold dig — in a exchange for them not suing and the whole thing just being over. Still, probably best for everyone to just walk away. It’s just frustrating that she is the one who had no consequences here.
I sincerely apologize for offending you, Floyd. I did not mean for that at all. I was not saying simply because she dated a non-member, but rather the whole mileu: LDS girl dating the NIL non-member starting quarterback at a D1 school. She may be just as sweet as can be, but the “type” is usually very different from the “average” BYU coed. Since BYU’s enrollment is, what, 98% LDS, she is/was all but certain to be LDS This incident with the lawsuit girl was certainly not Jake’s first sexual experience, and precocious/experienced non-members in their young 20s are going to default to what they expect and want. Jake clearly didn’t care about the honor code. This girl may have been a stellar example of standards and a good influence on him. We don’t know. But I do wonder if there is other collateral damage at BYU with this than just what happened to Jake.
Speaking of no consequences. the girl who dropped the suit “on it’s merits” gets to remain anonymous. Shouldn’t she have to show her face to the world since it’s now known and admitted that Jake didn’t assault her?
Anonymity should be to protect ostensible victims (when it’s unknown if there are merits or not).
These days, it feels like lawsuits are filed at the drop of a hat—sometimes for reasons that seem downright absurd. That said, as you mentioned, defining what makes a case “frivolous” is easier said than done.
What really stands out to me in this case—and in some of the reactions here—is how quickly people assumed Jake was telling the truth simply because he denied the accusations, while automatically discrediting the woman’s claims as lies.
It’s fascinating how our perspectives can become clouded, often shaped by our loyalties more than by facts.
I’ve seen firsthand how dangerous it can be to leap to conclusions before the full picture is clear. I’ve known someone whose life was torn apart by a false accusation—but I’ve also known women who endured serious trauma, who bravely spoke out only to be dismissed or accused of lying for personal gain.
Maybe I’m being a little judgmental, but my own experiences have taught me to hold back judgment until all the facts are known. I try not to point fingers at individuals or institutions without solid grounding.
In a court filing, JR’s attorney stated he believed the woman had been involved with players from the University of Utah, though he offered no specific names or supporting context.
Whether that allegation is true remains to be seen. But in the absence of confirmed facts presented in court, people often fill in the gaps themselves—making assumptions and “connecting the dots” as they go.
For instance, there’s a circulating rumor that the BYU Honor Code Office initially intended to overlook JR’s involvement. However, once the lawsuit surfaced, they reportedly felt pressured to act. Some observers point to the timing—arguing that the events took place two years ago, that other players were likely aware, and that such information couldn’t have stayed hidden for long in a close-knit environment.
Still, that’s merely one interpretation—another case of speculative dot-connecting.
Ya, there were family members on my wife’s side that thought maybe my fiancé (now my wife for 51 years) was pregnant and that’s why we were getting married so fast. Wasn’t the case. But, I didn’t get all defensive and mad like you did. I’ve never had time to have things bother me like sensitive liberals and Democrats do.
The English rule provides that the party that loses in court pays the other party’s legal costs. The English rule contrasts with the American rule, under which each party is generally responsible for paying its own attorney fees…one of the basic things I learned in law school was that sometimes the English got their version of our legal heritage right.
If we have the English rule, none of the harm to Retzlaff or BYU occurs.
Though who knows the new QB at BYU may be a blessing in disguise.
That would certainly be a good rule to adopt here. People would think twice before trying to shake down somebody with a frivolous lawsuit.
I am not an attorney but I worked with defense attorneys for years who defended policy holders for insurance companies I worked for. The vast majority of the time when a personal injury lawsuit was filed it was settled out of court, often when the claim was questionable. Insurance companies, like all corporations, are driven by the bottom line, and many claims are settled because defense costs are too high and there is always a risk when you roll the dice in court. I also negotiated settlements with personal injury lawyers and was reigned in a few times by the insurance company when I could have gotten them out of a few frivolous claims for a modest amount. After lawsuits were filed, depositions taken, and after spending about ten grand in attorneys fees, they ended up paying five times what I could have settled for.
The point of this ramble is that personal injury lawyers know they can nearly always get something because insurance companies and individuals with money don’t want to run up legal expenses and roll the dice in court. I suspect Retzlaff may have been approached by this girl for a modest amount of cash and when he told her to get lost she hired an attorney who probably thought they could file suit and get a quick settlement and get her something.
If her attorney took her case on a contingency basis there was almost no risk for her, Retzlaff on the other hand hired a high profile defense attorney and his legal fees probably would have been significant if this had gone to trial. Even with a very weak case the girl and her attorney probably thought they could get a settlement of some sort.
It is my understanding that the suit against Retzlaff was dismissed with prejudice but that still doesn’t mean there wasn’t a settlement before the dismissal was filed. The settlement agreement could have stipulated that the settlement would be confidential. If I am wrong about this let me know. I am not a lawyer but know a little about tort law.
We are having our family’s very first lawsuit experience right now. Our daughter is entering her senior year of college. She has logged 4,000 miles on her E-Bike going to two jobs, one of which is quite far away (she is the mission president’s wife’s assistant). A middle aged woman in an Audi turned into her while she was riding straight in the bike lane. Our daughter’s bike was destroyed, and she broke her collarbone (ambulance ride to the ER, X rays and a sling). I thought that this is why we have car insurance, and she would file a claim and it would be covered under the driver’s liability coverage. Farmer’s insurance sent her a letter saying that they had determined she is entitled to nothing, and that the insurer’s liability limits are only $10,000, anyway. For the first time in our life, we visited an attorney (my childhood friend is a lawyer), and the minute we got a lawyer, Farmer’s is now frantically throwing money at her. Because they played games and outright lied about the coverage and their liability in the letter, the attorney is going after them for medical bills, property loss, lost wages (which is a lot more than her actual lost wages), and the mystery “pain and suffering” settlement. And the insurance company is only too happy to comply. It is really stupid, because if they had just honestly did what the policy says it would, it would have been cheaper for them than lying and being penalized for playing games. The attorney takes a third of what Farmer’s pays out.
Our insurance policy (GEICO) would probably also do the lying game of we are at fault in an accident. Our card says that in a accident, under no circumstances are we to say anything about our coverage limits. They don’t want people involved to know.
I am not a litigious person, but what this girl did was so bad, and with no apparent financial risk to herself, that I would not be against a suit (on grounds of reputation damage, with her suit dropped like a rock upon discovery) that would make her life uncomfortable and force her to declare bankruptcy. But Jake probably just wants to move on.
Insurance companies are a racket, and no one really cares (politicians). When I was first married, many moons ago, my wife was driving and an “uninsured” driver pull out in front of her, which caused an accident. The car was unregistered, the guy had no insurance, and the police sighted him with three different traffic violations. The other driver skipped town, and no one could find him. Our insurance guy called us and asked if we knew where he was. what a moron!
We put in our claim to All State insurance; the insurance company paid for the repairs and then jacked up my premiums almost double.
I called the insurance broker and asked why? I explained that we had uninsured coverage for accident such as this, His response was “well someone has to pay for the damage”.
I left the company shortly thereafter and found a better insurance company (at that time), now over 30 years later they are becoming like All State.
You should really study the Savior admonition in the Doctrine and Covenants about “contention” and the source of it.
But then again, you never have been one to follow what our current prophet has talked about contention and name calling, have you?
I asked simply that Rubicon reframe from judging others based on association. That is what President Nelson has asked us to do with our lives and being better followers of Christ. Not be so judgmental and contentious, sorry you do not believe that.
I am sorry you are having that experience. I worked for insurance companies for 39 years in the property and casualty end of things. I assure you that what you experienced is not the rule. The vast majority of the time meritorious claims are settled, generally as promptly as possible, and fairly although the claims process is always stressful and people often feel the value of their claim is much more than it actually is. It sounds like your experience is very bad, and based on what I am reading, there appears to be no reason for the denial of your claim. It would appear the claim would be worth well in excess of the policy limit of $10,000.00 if that is the bodily injury limits. I assume it is for property damage. I don’t think any carrier has bodily injury limits that low anymore. Each state has different tort laws and in some states if a claimant has any negligence at all they can be barred from recovery under the contributory negligence tort laws of that state. Very few states have that law. I don’t know where you live and what the law is but it doesn’t sound like your daughter had any negligence so she should recover all her damages up to the policy limits and if her policy has underinsured motorist’s coverage your policy would pay the difference between what the Farmer’s policy limit is and what the claim is worth. Anyway, your attorney would know the laws of the state and what is recoverable.
You shouldn’t reveal your policy limits because it could become a target for somebody and an incentive to inflate their claim. If suit is filed that information is discoverable anyway. It isn’t really relevant unless a claim is going to reach, or exceed, your policy limits.
I am not defending an insurance company for unfair practices, but what you have described is the exception to the rule. I am sorry you are having to deal with it. Most claims are routinely handled in a fair manner.
It is very odd that Farmers would tell somebody what their policy limits are if didn’t think they had any liability for your daughter’s claim. That doesn’t make sense. It as if they are saying we don’t think our insured is at fault and if they are they don’t have enough insurance. I never saw a letter like that in 39 years.
The can of worms Farmers could have opened is that if they have a claim where they know they should have paid their policy limits and failed to offer the limit and their insured is hit with a court judgment in excess of their policy limits Farmers could be sued by their insured for the excess judgment plus triple damages. At least that is, or was the law, in Texas. I have been retired a number of years. Again your attorney would know all this.
Exactly. $10,000 for bodily injury is too low in any state, I’ll bet (below state minimum). It sounded to is like they were just bluffing, hoping we would just move on. They did pay more than double the value of the e bike, and the lost wages is going to be hefty. Medical isn’t too bad for them (ambulance, ER, and orthopedic surgeon visits), and our daughter won’t need rehab (it’s healed well). We’re not sure what our attorney will do about pain and suffering.
The minute we had an attorney, Farmer’s suddenly offered $6500. Our attorney told them it was going to be much more than that since they had lied and were playing games.
I’m looking at the Farmer’s letter right now. It states that the policy has a coverage limit of $10,000 for bodily injury, which is too low in any state, as we’ve mentioned. Then it says “We compared the policy to the facts obtained in our review and determined that you do not qualify for medical coverage under this policy.” It was funny that they immediately offered $6500 when our attorney contacted them.
Medical insurance is the same. Deny claims at first, regardless of merit, and only grudgingly offer bread crumbs if pressed and forced to. Insurance has increasingly become a racket.
There was never any question of fault. The bike was going straight in a bike lane, and the Audi turned right into her. Bikes are regarded as cars in our state (per our attorney), so it would be like a car turning right into a car going straight.
No. Way. Thanks for making sure to say it’s a rumor–I know guys at the very top of this food chain and I’d bet my company they didn’t “intend to overlook” anything.
Harold: I’ve been an attorney a long time but don’t litigate (I serve in a fiduciary capacity for trusts, estates, and protective proceedings), although my firm does quite a bit of litigation. I appreciate your message, and have argued for years that the English reciprocal fee award provision is a great way to forestall a lot of the weak or even frivolous lawsuits out there.
I had one of my sons total one of our cars when he was 16. No one was hurt which was lucky and the other people were really great too. But, Snake Farm wrote a small check out and said take it or leave it. My son was at fault. It was a head on collision. Fortunately, the other driver had cerebral palsy and was driving 15 miles per hour under the speed limit. But, when our washing machine hose broke, we had floor damage that was $8,000. Snake Farm paid all of it without any problems. We didn’t receive any price increases for either one.
Now, jumping over to IULs, life insurance companies and their lying agents about IULs are being sued left and right getting hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.