DES MOINES, Iowa — A do-over is a do-over.

That's what an amateur golfer argued for jurors Monday when he took the stand demanding that a charity tournament pay him the $10,000 prize for a hole-in-one, even though he hit the shot on a second try.

Adam Fisher, now 20, is suing the non-profit Iowa Future Farmers of America for breach of contract for refusing to pay the hole-in-one prize advertised in fliers and on a sign that greeted golfers approaching the fifth tee at the Legacy Golf Club on June 11, 2003.

Fisher's "1," an "ace" in golf parlance, was accepted for his team's score on the hole but was rejected by tournament organizers because Fisher elected to use a mulligan — an amateur's "do-over" — and hit a second tee shot.

Story continues

advertisement

Fisher testified that his high school adviser announced the use of the mulligan before Fisher hit the second tee shot. Tournament officials watching the proceedings never mentioned it until later, after learning that the tournament's "hole-in-one insurance" policy specifically barred the use of mulligans.

"I thought I had my first year of college paid for, so I was pretty excited," said Fisher, who used a 3-iron to score the disputed 196-yard hole-in-one.

Lawyers for the Iowa FFA see it differently. The father-and-son legal team of Edward Skinner and Bradley Skinner claim that Fisher scored a "hole-in-two" and that there was no contract that Fisher could use a mulligan and still win the prize.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this case is about a second shot, a so-called 'hole-in-two,' if you like," Bradley Skinner said during his opening statement to the six-woman, two-man jury. "It was a hole-in-one [contest]. Not a hole-in-two."

Polk County District Judge Karen Romano delivered a potentially huge blow to the Iowa FFA's defense even before jurors were selected Monday morning. Romano ruled that because of Iowa's civil procedure, rules jurors will not be told about the no-mulligan provision of the tournament's "hole-in-one insurance" policy.

Fisher's attorney, Roger Stone, argued successfully that the policy was a contract between the insurer and the tournament, not the tournament and Fisher. "That's between them and the insurance company," Fisher said.

Fisher, who is now attending community college in the Cedar Rapids area, was the first of four witnesses called as part of the plaintiff's case. With each one, Stone hammered home the point that the tournament flier offered "unlimited mulligans" and that the sign offering the cash prize said nothing to the contrary.

"They never said anything about not being able to gain a prize by using a mulligan," Fisher said. "They never said it didn't count."

On cross-examination, Bradley Skinner highlighted the fact that Fisher personally hadn't paid his entry fee, did not lay out the $20 for his team's four mulligans, and that a hole-in-one is typically accomplished without using a mulligan. Skinner stressed that for Fisher to prevail in the case he has to prove there was a contractual agreement between Fisher and the tournament that he could use a mulligan to win prizes.

"It doesn't say [on the sign] 'Hole-in-two wins a $10,000 prize,' does it?" Skinner asked.

"No," Fisher conceded.

Tom Murray, Fisher's adviser at the North Linn High School Future Farmers of America chapter, was a reluctant witness for Fisher. The 33-year-old agriculture education teacher agreed when Stone suggested that testifying on Fisher's behalf was somewhat of a conflict of interest given his role as an FFA adviser.

Asked whether anyone objected when tournament officials informed Fisher that his mulligan negated the hole-in-one prize, Murray said the decision to challenge the ruling was made later — by Fisher.

"I try to instill good moral values in my kids," Murray said. "We weren't going to complain about it at the time."

The plaintiff's final witness, tournament director Scott Herold, testified that, although it may not have been specifically announced in advance, the intention of offering mulligans was to raise additional money and give teams a chance to lower their gross scores. He said it is "not logical" that the mulligans were intended to be used to allow golfers to take multiple shots on the hole-in-one prize holes.

"This whole thing could have been clarified if your sign said 'No mulligans,' correct?" Stone asked.

"Correct," Herold acknowledged.

The case could go to the jury Tuesday afternoon. The trial is being streamed live by Court TV Extra.