A bit of a misconception.

---
Never say that Jamie's side doesn't handle the media well. In several articles that ran yesterday and today, Jamie's legal team claims to have discovered a document that shows she owns an equal share of the Dodgers. Unless I am missing something, that document is nothing more than the version of the MPA without Exhibit A--the addendum to the MPA which specifically designates the Dodgers as Frank's property.

While this iteration of the MPA is certainly important--it might be helpful to Jamie's allegation that Frank misled her with respect to the scope of the agreement--it is hardly a piece of paper affirmatively stating that Jamie is entitled to an equal stake in the team. As we discussed yesterday, the issue will turn on whether the absence of Exhibit A was a clerical error--as Frank contends--or a deliberate attempt to get Jamie's signature on one document while trying to enforce another.

One remaining wildcard in the matter is whatever transpired during the depositions of Frank and Jamie McCourt, as well as other key players. Limited information is available at this point, but some nuggets are out: Jamie's lawyers find it remarkable that Frank remembers little about the days the various versions of the MPA were signed, except that Exhibit A was described and discussed in detail. And Frank's attorneys rely on Jamie's testimony that "she wanted the homes to be her separate property to protect them from the risks of Frank's business and for the business (including the Dodgers) to be Frank's separate property."

There is surely yet more testimony coming from the depositions that will provide key insights into the remaining issues of the case. Whether these admissions, claims, and justifications will see the light of day depends on whether the trial begins as scheduled--in ten days.
---