I’m not sure it did. There’s no mention of the advantageous deal until the trial testimony as to same. Before that it was just RG did work and SGF agrees they owe him money, and I think we all assumed she was paying rent + board + training. There is zero mention of said unconventional deal in either civil suit filing.
It’s entirely possible there was a payoff in the offering that was being negotiated among lawyers. Perhaps MB didn’t actually agree to any of this but rather an entirely different set of circumstances and simply wasn’t being paid as agreed. Who knows if a settling of accounts was in the offering being negotiated by lawyers.
The eviction process doesn’t really require representation, which is what suggests to me there was something else involved besides simple right of tenancy.
I have no idea if any of this is fact. But something smells fishy.