Well, that wait didn't last long. As reported by several outlets, Judge Scott Gordon has thrown out the MPA at the heart of Frank and Jamie McCourt's divorce case. While we're as yet without the specific reasoning behind the decision, I suspect it is deeply rooted in Frank's failure to persuade the court not to evaluate the MPA under California Family Code Section 852(a).
As you might recall, § 852(a) specifically forbids the court from examining extrinsic evidence showing Jamie's intent with the document. Put simply: the text of the MPA controls. And when faced with two documents conflicting as to a material term--ownership of the couple's principal asset--what choice does a judge have but to toss the agreement entirely?
A couple months back, I speculated:
[T]he threshold question is whether Judge Gordon will consider much beyond the words on the agreements themselves. Because of the conflicting Exhibit A's, a determination that § 852(a) controls the analysis would be a big step in the winning direction for Jamie.The guess here is that big step was, indeed, taken.
---
Posts
Frank and Jaime should leave the baseball business to their sons and avoid the protracted fight that will damage their only real money-maker. Frank and Jaime should focus on their new asset: the law firm of Bingham McCutchen. After the law suit, they will basically own Bingham McCutchen. They could go back to the developer business (parking lots) since developers are basically law firms with hard hats.
ReplyDeleteYES YES YES!
ReplyDeleteOne step closer to knew ownership.
Leave the baseball business to their sons!? Are you kidding me? How about they just leave the baseball business? NOW!
ReplyDeleteIs the ruling posted on a website anywhere?
ReplyDeleteDo you have a PDF of the order you could post, Josh? I haven't found one out there yet.
ReplyDelete@MattO, I just don't see either Frank or Jaime selling. It's their only means of support, financially and, apparently, emotionally. So, in my opinion, the least damaging option for the Dodgers would be to transfer ownership to their sons. Whether that passes MLB, I don't know. This is Selig's train crash and he needs to fix it by allowing this to happen.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way MLB will let these two co-exist in any sort of ownership structure for the team. If the court rules it as a joint asset, and one party cannot buy out the other (which is impossible given their finances), then they will be forced to sell. Transferring ownership to their sons is not an option.
ReplyDeleteCan you 'force' somebody to sell? Is there a clause in MLB where Selig can 'force' somebody to sell? I guess 'for the good of baseball' but since Selig works at the behest of owners, I don't think they would give him that power.
ReplyDeleteOh, you mean the court can force a sale. I believe that Jaime and Frank would reach an agreement before that happens.
ReplyDeleteMRTemecula:
ReplyDeleteBoth. The court can force a sale or the MLB can. There is a provision in the contract that exists between the owners and the league that allows the MLB to require a sale for the good of the league or something like that. I don't remember exactly how it's worded and, to my knowledge, it's never been invoked. So even if they somehow work things out (which I think is even less likely now), Selig could order the team sold anyway.
The decision:
ReplyDeletehttp://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1207_mccourt.pdf
Does this mean Frank still owns the houses then?
ReplyDeleteI know this is easier said than done, but when it comes to the divorce process, husband and wife should make their decisions according to what is in the best interests of their children. Again, I know that is easier said than done, but the husband and wife should at least make a good faith best effort to look out for the best interests of their children.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote something that people could understand and made the
ReplyDeletesubject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.