Tiger Woods was recently spotted finding love again with Erica Herman at an event in Florida.

Tiger Woods is embroiled in a significant legal dispute with his former girlfriend, Erica Herman, who has filed a lawsuit seeking $45 million in damages following their contentious breakup. The lawsuit reveals a series of dramatic allegations that paint a complex picture of their relationship and the subsequent legal battle.

 

The dispute centers around Herman’s claim that Woods used deceitful tactics to force her out of their shared residence in Jupiter, Florida. According to court documents, Herman alleges that Woods’ representatives tricked her into leaving the mansion under the pretense of a brief vacation. She was reportedly told to pack a suitcase for a short trip, but upon arriving at the airport, she learned that she had been locked out of her home. Herman contends that this action violated both their oral tenancy agreement and Florida law.

 

The lawsuit details that Woods subsequently covered her accommodation costs for a brief period but allegedly took further steps to prevent her from returning to the property. Herman claims that Woods’ team removed her belongings from the mansion, including $40,000 in cash, and made disparaging claims about the origin of the money. This action, she argues, not only breached their agreement but also inflicted emotional and financial harm.

 

Herman’s legal team has requested that the court nullify a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) she signed when their relationship began in 2017. This request is grounded in a recent legal development: the Speak Out Act, a federal law enacted in December 2022 which limits the enforcement of NDAs in cases involving sexual harassment and assault. Although Herman has not directly accused Woods of sexual misconduct, she is seeking to have the NDA declared invalid, arguing that it should not prevent her from pursuing legal recourse and sharing her experiences.

 

The lawsuit also reveals Herman’s assertion that she had an “oral agreement” allowing her to reside in the property for a minimum of 11 years, with five years still remaining on this supposed agreement at the time she was forced to leave. Herman’s request for $30 million in compensation is based on these claims of wrongful eviction and the alleged breach of their living arrangement.

 

In response, Woods’ legal team has contested Herman’s claims, arguing that oral tenancy agreements in Florida are valid for less than one year, thus undermining Herman’s argument about the length of her residence. Additionally, Woods’ representatives have challenged the validity of the NDA claim, contending that Herman’s lawsuit against the Woods Trust rather than directly against Woods himself is an attempt to circumvent the confidentiality provisions of the NDA. They assert that Herman’s legal action is an attempt to gain leverage by bringing the dispute into the public eye, rather than resolving it through confidential arbitration as stipulated in the agreement.

 

The ongoing legal battle has also raised questions about the applicability of the NDA under the Speak Out Act. Herman’s legal filings suggest that the NDA’s enforcement could be challenged under this new federal law, which limits the application of such agreements in cases involving harassment and assault. The court will need to determine whether the NDA can be enforced or if Herman’s claims should be adjudicated outside its bounds.

 

Both Woods and Herman have kept a low profile since the breakup, and their relationship status has remained largely unaddressed publicly. The couple was last seen together in August of the previous year at the US Open tennis tournament in New York.

 

The case is unfolding in a Florida court, where Herman’s request for a jury trial is under consideration. The outcome of this high-profile lawsuit could have significant implications not only for Woods and Herman but also for the broader understanding of NDA enforcement in sensitive personal disputes.