UPDATE:
Carla Hall of the Times has jumped in, confirming that the $225,000 temporary support figure is monthly. Combining it with the mortgage payments, that puts Frank's support obligations at $637,159 each month for the duration of the divorce. A long-term solution will be worked out as part of the proceedings going forward.
---
TMZ is reporting that Commissioner Gordon
Frank will have to make those mortgage payments retroactive to last December--meaning he must write her a seven-figure check. That $1 million per month Jamie was seeking? Forget about it. The biggest damage to Frank coming out of today's news is that Commissioner Gordon didn't buy Frank's neat little attempt to have the court bless the post-nup. Frank, you'll recall, wanted the court to order Jamie to dispose of some of the couple's real estate to help pay her bills. Such an order would have implicitly acknowledged the validity of the post-nup, which stipulates that the residential properties are Jamie's and the Dodgers Frank's in the case of a divorce.
Instead, the court ordered the couple's Cabo San Lucas property sold, and the proceeds split between the two. The property is valued at approximately $6 million, so Jamie's take from the sale won't cover even half her legal bills, currently standing at about $8 million.
---
Posts
Nice, finally some progress. Can we expect a longer post from you soon explaining what long term effects these rulings might lead to?
ReplyDeleteSure thing. At first blush, I'm inclined to say "not much." I suppose the most important factor here might be cost-certainly. While Frank won't like cutting Jamie a $3 million (or so) check, it sure beats $5 million. Similarly, paying her $600,000 per month is better than $1 million.
ReplyDeleteThe big question, though, is the extent to which Frank's personal finances affect team spending right now. It's clear that the McCourts have taken a ton out of the team over a period of years, but I wonder how much Frank's personal finances matter at the moment.
Is there a reason noone is discussing the ethical conflict of interest that violates all applicable legal ethics rules by the Bingham McCutchen firm. The Bingham firm, through its Boston partner, Mr. Silverstein, represented both Frank and Jamie McCourt in drafting the asset protection post nuptual agreement. The firm, through its Los Angeles partner, Marshall Grossman, then took on the representation of Frank McCourt against their one time client, Jamie McCourt, over the interpretation of that agreement. Yet another example of a national law firm not being able to see a conflict of interest. This is a big, big deal that not a single reporter seems to have picked up on. Hopefully, the California State Bar will not be so forgiving.
ReplyDeleteGrreat blog post
ReplyDelete