AriZona Iced Tea Co-Founder Battles Former Masseuse Over $820K Florida Home
AriZona Iced Tea co-founder John Ferolito is locked in a fierce legal battle with his former masseuse over an $820,000 Florida home, disputed promises, and financial gifts.
John Ferolito, co-founder of beverage giant AriZona Iced Tea, is embroiled in a bitter legal dispute with Phaisynia "Fay" Pratt, his masseuse of approximately 23 years. At the center of the controversy is a home in the Miami/Coral Springs area of Florida, valued at about $820,000, which Pratt claims Ferolito promised to transfer to her name.
Throughout the years she worked for him, legal documents and various records indicate that Ferolito provided Pratt and her family with extensive financial benefits. Among other things, he reportedly purchased a new car for her mother, covered a mortgage on another property she owned, paid for private tutoring and dental braces for her children, and financed family vacations and casino trips. Additionally, it was noted that Ferolito transferred $180,000 to her for opening an investment account, a sum that grew to more than $600,000.
The relationship between the parties collapsed in September 2022 following a dispute over landscaping work at the house worth approximately $33,000. Pratt was fired from her job, and since then a legal battle has been underway between the two in the Broward County court. A key piece of evidence in dispute is a covert recording of a phone call made through a video doorbell ("Ring"), in which an assistant of Ferolito is heard telling Pratt that the house would be transferred to her name and that financial support toward her would continue until the end of that year.
Ferolito's attorneys argue that the recording was made without his knowledge or consent and is therefore inadmissible under Florida state law. Conversely, Ferolito and his team maintain that the property was purchased solely as an investment and that Pratt lived in it for a rent of just one dollar a month by virtue of her employment. Now, Ferolito is asking the court to order her eviction from the property, while Pratt demands to receive ownership of the house or financial compensation for the investments she made in it.
