Time is running out.

---
Yesterday was another odd day in over a year filled with them. Let me get you up to speed, and then we'll discuss the implications of the day's events.

Ever since the trial to determine the validity of the MPA ended in September, the parties (and their representatives) have been under an order to keep settlement discussions confidential. This order covered details of the formal mediation process, led by Judge Peter Lichtman, as well as any informal negotiations between the parties. With occasional exception, that order has been followed.

Last week, we learned that Judge Lichtman would soon put a formal proposal on the table, and the parties were advised that a failure to agree by the end of November would likely leave the power to decide the issue solely with Judge Scott Gordon. That brings us to yesterday.

At about 3:30 Pacific, Frank's camp issued the following statement:

Frank fully supported the mediation process in the hopes that it would result in an agreement that would bring long-awaited closure to this matter. 

It is clear that Judge Lichtman, who acted as the settlement judge in this matter, went to great lengths to bring the parties together.  He presented a thoughtful, detailed proposal that clearly took significant time, energy and expertise to prepare. 

After considerable deliberation, Frank accepted Judge Lichtman's proposal.  He felt it was the responsible thing to do for his family, the Dodgers organization and the entire community. Unfortunately, Judge Lichtman has declared the parties to be at impasse.  We can only conclude that Jamie rejected Judge Lichtman’s settlement proposal and is allowing this matter to drag on further.

Talk about burying the lead! It was a move clearly intended to paint Jamie as the roadblock in settlement discussions. Judge Lichtman, a respected mediator, put an offer on the table. Frank accepted, Jamie didn't. Pretty easy PR play from there.

When reached for comment, one of Jamie's attorneys expressed surprise about the statement, offering little more than the following:

We believe that the Court ordered complete confidentiality regarding the settlement proposal and everything related to it, and we believe it would be a violation to say anything about the proposal or anything related to it. 

Busy day, huh? Jamie turned down what was likely the (lucrative) last, best chance to settle the case prior to a determination of the MPA's validity, and Frank's camp decided that the benefits of publicizing her rejection of the deal outweighed the risk of running afoul of the Court's confidentiality order. These decisions--both calculated risks--might provide a great deal of information about the relative strengths of the parties. Let's start with what each party's response to the settlement proposal tells us about their camp's mindset.

Stated crudely, there are three main components in each party's evaluation of the settlement proposal: what the party would get in the settlement (X), what the party would get in a win (Y), and the party's chances of losing (Z). In a vacuum, you compare X to [Y discounted by Z] and go from there. Of course, life (and law) doesn't happen in a vacuum, and considerations like predictability, risk tolerance, and plain old human emotion play in.

Frank and Jamie's decisions to, respectively, accept and reject the settlement terms do not, on their own, tell us a great deal about the specific proposal on the table, or how each party views its position moving forward. For instance, Jamie's rejection of the settlement doesn't necessarily means she thinks she will win--just that the settlement wasn't generous enough to persuade her to give up the chance to win. But, using other information, we can speculate a bit as to what yesterday's events mean.

In settlement discussions prior to the trial, Frank steadfastly refused to consider any agreement which affected the family's ownership of the Dodgers in any way. Sources very close to the situation told me in September that this position extended to terms that stopped short of actually selling the team; Frank was unwilling to think about selling part of the team to pay Jamie off, and was also unwilling to encumber future revenue streams in such a way as to affect the team's operating budget.

If we assume that Frank, after the trial, at least stood firm on the issue of keeping the team in the family, we can logically speculate that the settlement proposal on the table that Frank accepted and Jamie rejected would have accomplished that goal. We can also assume that the settlement proposal reflected Judge Lichtman's informed opinion on each party's chances should the case reach a decision, although we can't be sure the parties themselves agreed with Judge Lichtman's assessment.

In a very uncharacteristic move, Frank's camp broke silence on the issue, beating Jamie's to the media. Over the course of this saga, it's been rare for Frank's side to proactively shape public opinion; from day one, Jamie's fought much more loudly than Frank. Here, it's clear that Frank wants us all to know that he agreed to end this battle, and Jamie stood in the way. But why?

The Times' Bill Shaikin and Carla Hall spoke to a couple experts to find out. One, family law attorney Lynn Soodik, speculated that Frank either saw the offer as fair, or knew that Jamie was going to reject it. Under the second theory, Frank wanted to realize the public relations gain from painting Jamie as the reason this is still an open issue. His side's choice to make all this public now, though, suggests there's more going on than simply trying to grab the moral high ground.

By going public with Jamie's rejection of the expert mediator's settlement proposal prior to a decision, Frank can accomplish two things. First, there is the open and obvious public pressure on Jamie's side to come to an agreement. Maybe the thinking is that this will force her hand. Maybe the thinking is that, for as concerned as Jamie's side has been with its public perception, coming off as unreasonable and uncompromising is not an acceptable outcome.

Or maybe yesterday's statement wasn't about yesterday. Or last week. In addition to applying pressure to Jamie's position, I think it's at least possible that Marc Seltzer's comments were meant to lay the foundation for Frank's least desirable outcome: an eventual sale of the Dodgers, compelled by a decision in Jamie's favor. Frank felt accepting the settlement "was the responsible thing to do for his family, the Dodgers organization and the entire community." Conversely, then, rejecting the settlement, as Jamie did, would have been the irresponsible thing to do. Put differently, it might have jeopardized what Frank believes should be the couple's most important goal.


Frank McCourt's primary position has been that the Dodgers must stay in the family. Naturally, he is confident that McCourt ownership is also good for the Dodgers and, by extension, the community. While he might have come to Los Angeles an outsider, I strongly believe that Frank has come to regard the Dodgers as much more important than 24 acres of Boston seafront property ever were. And I wonder if yesterday's release is a sign that he is concerned about his chances of keeping the Dodgers in the family.


I still think Jamie got what she wanted in the MPA. I can't look at her initial public statements in the divorce and conclude that she had any idea that the documents had been switched--that she had any idea there existed an Exhibit A making the Dodgers anything but Frank's separate property. And I can't help but think that, despite her apparent unfamiliarity with marital property laws in Massachusetts and California, and despite the ugly chain of events leading up to the MPA's execution and subsequent modification, Jamie didn't have enough in the way of background and intelligence to at least question the document when she reviewed its terms. 


For all that, though, Jamie's case is strong. Strong enough, perhaps, that Frank's inability to prove his facts is more important than Frank's facts as they actually occurred. Strong enough that most observers considered Jamie to be in the lead after the trial. Strong enough that Jamie turned down what was surely a well-reasoned, thorough settlement proposal crafted by a well-respected mediator. Strong enough, basically, that the McCourt with the most to lose is ready to roll the dice.
---

The meaning of the conflicting Exhibit A's.

---

Twice in the last week or so, I tried to articulate where the difference between what really happened and what can be proved manifests itself in the issue currently under Judge Gordon's advisement. More than anything else, the existence of two different signed, notarized versions of the MPA has some fans and observers calling this a relatively simple case. A commenter to the last post notes:

Bottom line -- Whatever the "truth" as Frank or Josh know it, if there has been no apparent meeting of the minds and the writing signed by the parties does not reflect the clear understanding of the parties, show me a judge who is going to uphold the questioned writing.

I really understand the logic behind this argument. If you have people signing documents that provide for completely opposite treatment of Asset X, it's awfully hard to say the parties agreed on what to do with Asset X. In this context, the versions do something completely different with the most important asset in the marriage: the Los Angeles Dodgers.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm only talking about the fact of the existence of materially conflicting versions of the MPA.

Summed up, Jamie's argument goes like this: the different Exhibit A's present an "irresolvable conflict" between the Massachusetts and California versions of the MPA. Because of this discrepancy, it cannot be legally determined which property was meant to be made Frank's own, and the MPA is therefore a legally ineffective document. While outside evidence of the parties' intent is often admissible, California Family Code § 852(a) imposes special rules for interpreting transmutation agreements.*

*Frank contends that the MPA should not be regarded as a "transmutation"--and thus not subject to the special rules of § 852(a)--but that's a conversation for a different day. We'll assume, for now, the MPA is indeed a transmutation, and therefore needs to conform to the strict rules of § 852(a).

First and foremost, California law requires that, for a transmutation to be effective, it must contain an "express declaration" that the spouse giving away rights to property intended to do so. Jamie's lawyers say the conflicting Exhibit A's are conclusive evidence that the MPA fails to offer such a declaration. Where § 852(a) is really tough on Frank is that it specifically forbids the introduction of extrinsic evidence to prove an express declaration or an intent to separate property. So all the witnesses who said Jamie always wanted the MPA this way? Who cares. Jamie's attorneys say that it is simply impossible to tell from the signed agreements what the parties meant to do, and signed agreements govern under California law.

Their argument is inherently logical: if the law requires a clear and unambiguous expression of intent to transfer an interest in property, and the documents have completely opposite expressions of what the parties intend, and outside evidence of intent isn't allowed, what is left to argue about? California law governing interpretation of transmutation agreements requires clarity in writing and forbids oral evidence for policy reasons, and application of that law sure seems favorable to Jamie.

And maybe that's all Judge Gordon needs; maybe it even forces his hand. But I think that a decision in Jamie's favor based on § 852(a)'s requirement of an express declaration of intent would be, while defensible, a bit hollow. The California legislature expressed, through § 852(a), that the old system of not requiring an express declaration "encourage[d] a spouse, after the marriage ha[d] ended, to transform a passing comment into an ‘agreement’ or even to commit perjury by manufacturing an oral or implied transmutation." I don't believe that the legislative intent driving the creation of what became § 852(a) was meant to cover this sort of fact pattern.

The parties did expressly declare their intent in the only version of the MPA they ever believed to be signing, and did so in the only version they ever knew about until this year.  I don't think Jamie winning would be any great injustice--there are several problems with the MPA I would accept as fair and fatal. The mere existence of two different Exhibit A's is not one of them.

---

So just what really happened?

---
We all know pretty well why we're here. The basics aren't tough. Frank and Jamie McCourt are getting divorced, and there's a question as to whether Jamie is entitled to half the value of the Los Angeles Dodgers. There's a document--a relatively simple one, really--that says everything titled in Frank's name shall be his in the context of a division of assets. Divorce counts. Seems simple enough, right?

But there's also something tacked onto that document. A couple things, actually. One, Exhibit A to the agreement, specifies assets that belong to Frank. Now, the main document itself sort of says that Exhibit isn't important. That it's for "courtesy" only. So, since the Dodgers are unquestionably in Frank's name, what's so hard about this? Problem is, as you likely know, two different agreements were signed, the difference being the content of Exhibit A.

One version says the Dodgers are Frank's. He wins, keeps the team, game over. The other version specifically excludes the Dodgers from Frank's separate property*. She wins, the Dodgers are the couple's community property*, the club must be sold, game over.

*You understand intuitively what these concepts mean. You do. But you wouldn't if you were on the stand. 

That's pretty much why we're here. And, eventually, Judge Gordon will either agree with Frank and uphold the first version of Exhibit A, or he'll agree with Jamie and toss the thing entirely. The reasons and mechanics that go into that decision are fodder for a different discussion, one we'll have here before trial resumes Monday. That's the legal part. What I'm after here is answering the question titling this post: so just what really happened?

I'm pretty well convinced on this point. Frank and Jamie meant to separate their assets prior to moving to California. The quickest, simplest way to preserve the protections they'd long ago given their homes was to allocate them to Jamie and the team to Frank. To simply cordon off the homes and leave the Dodgers in the community pot would likely have been ineffective. So they meant to split things as Frank's Exhibit A does it.

Never in the course of the creation and execution of the document did Jamie McCourt express concern that the businesses were being legally allocated solely to Frank. Indeed, she wanted that. I strongly believe that the first three copies of the document the couple signed on March 31, 2004 were precisely what they wanted. At that time, anyway. They were walked through that copy--which contained Frank's Exhibit A--and signed it. That day, Jamie was shown three seemingly identical copies, which she signed believing they contained the same Exhibit A. She had no reason not to: that was what she wanted.

Over the course of the next several months and years, Jamie was provided the documents multiple times for various reasons. The couple also ratified it in writing upon the acquisition of additional homes. As far as I've seen, at no point prior to the onset of significant marital strife did Jamie ever cause a fuss about the words or effect of the MPA and its exhibits. She knew what it said, and--as someone who practiced family law for several years--what it did. Really.

Perhaps nothing is more telling about Jamie's understanding of the MPA than what she did not do at the outset of the divorce litigation. She did not say--because she did not know--that documents had been switched. She did not say--because she did not know--that the Exhibit A attached to the MPA was materially different from what she had meant to sign. But, if she believed that the only MPA she knew of was not confusing, not misleading, but flat-out contradictory to what she agreed to, wouldn't she have screamed that from Day One?

She didn't. In her filing for divorce, she claimed "it was never [her] understanding" that the MPA would divest her of any interest in the Dodgers in the event of divorce. She argued that she "had simply been told [she] needed to sign the document" upon the couple's move to California, and didn't consider its effect. I am not asserting that Jamie signed the MPA with divorce in mind. In fact, I'll bet she didn't. And I'm not asserting she doesn't have several viable arguments against the MPA, including, among other things, the lack of independent counsel and the incredible difficulty Frank is having credibly establishing his version of the timeline.

I am asserting, though, that if Jamie had any idea that the only Exhibit A she knew of at the moment of her filing was completely wrong, opposite to what she believed she signed, that she would have let us know right away. She didn't know that fact of the switch until much later. But she also didn't react in a way suggesting she even suspected the substance of the switch.

I want to be very clear here. I am not saying that, in the absence of a settlement, Frank will win. Heck, I'm not even saying he necessarily should. Jamie has several viable arguments against the enforcement of Frank's version of the MPA, not the least of which being the lack of independent representation and the seeming ineffectiveness of the counsel she had. Further, there are strong public policy reasons supporting an award to her of a substantial portion of the couple's assets, even if Frank's MPA is upheld. Finally, it cannot be ignored that Frank is having a devil of a time proving the facts that would lead to his victory.

This afternoon, in this post, I'm not saying Frank has the best legal position. If this was a jury trial, after what we saw this week, I'd put Jamie very far in the lead. For three of the signed copies, the Exhibit A was switched out after the fact, and Jamie was neither asked for permission in advance nor explicitly informed of the switch afterward. That's really bad, and I very much understand why many folks have called this for Jamie already.

And maybe they're right. This afternoon, though, in this post, I'm only saying I believe that the facts as they actually occurred--without regard for whether they can be legally established--are closer to Frank's telling than Jamie's. Eleven months after we started this litigation, I can't disregard that Jamie's initial response to Exhibit A just doesn't mesh with her contention that she agreed to something completely opposite.

Very bad things happened with respect to the creation and execution of the MPA. For a variety of reasons, both legal and in the interest of plain old fairness, Jamie has a strong case. Divorce, if it was considered at all in the context of the MPA, was not given much thought by either party. But if the question is, "So just what really happened," I strongly believe the answer is: the McCourts knowingly negotiated, approved of, and signed an agreement explicitly making the Dodgers Frank's, and the couple's residential real estate Jamie's.

Maybe they didn't know of alternatives. Maybe they didn't contemplate its effects. Maybe they were inadequately and ineffectively represented. Maybe the facts that can be proven aren't strong enough to carry the day. All of these things really do matter, and they are why this has lasted as long as it has. But, given the couple's history, the life cycle of the MPA, and how the parties always interpreted it, I can't conclude anything other than the conflicting version of Exhibit A was a complete accident, unknown and unrelied upon by Jamie until after the divorce was filed, when it became the strongest of her weapons against the document she reviewed and signed March 31.

Assuming the McCourts can't come to an agreement this weekend, the trial will resume Monday morning. And assuming the couple can't come to an agreement some time in the next three months, Judge Gordon will rule that Frank's version of the MPA holds, or that the entire thing is ineffective. When evaluating the case, Judge Gordon must and will consider much more than what he believes to be the true factual history of the MPA. For today, though, and in the narrowed scope of this discussion, I don't. I believe that the only textual version of the MPA Jamie understood to exist in 2004 was the only one she even suspected to exist when she filed for divorce last Fall.
---

Day seven preview.

---
Today, once David Boies finishes up with Jamie fairly early, her side is expected to rest. Then, it will be Stephen Susman's turn to call witnesses. Jamie could not recall several key meetings and events in her testimony yesterday, and you can be sure Frank's legal team has assembled an array of folks who will try to fill in the gaps.

First will be the to-this-point mythical Larry Silverstein, the Boston attorney who represented the McCourts in several matters, including the creation and execution of the MPA. While yesterday's action mostly bolstered Frank's claims concerning the effect of the MPA, Jamie's most potent challenge is to its enforceability. The existence of diametrically opposing Exhibits to the Agreement--one specifically including the Dodgers in Frank's separate property, the other specifically excluding the club--is the biggest hurdle Frank must overcome.

He will start today by eliciting testimony from Silverstein that the Dodgers were always meant to be included, Jamie knew it, and she never even knew of the mistaken Exhibit A. It's more than a little surprising that Silverstein elected to show up this week. As you can imagine, the events which led to his involvement in this litigation seem to be either an honest, but dreadful, mistake, or something far more nefarious. It's possible that whichever McCourt loses will believe Silverstein cost their side at least a half-billion dollars. His participation in this litigation is risky, to say the least.

Also expected in court today is Reynolds Cafferata, a lawyer from the same firm as Silverstein, Bingham McCutchen. Cafferata will likely testify to his role in the creation of the MPA. Further, Jamie kept notes from what seems to be a fairly detailed conversation with Cafferata concerning the effect of the MPA. Jamie claims she did not understand what she was writing down; she was merely keeping records. Cafferata may testify to knowledge of Jamie's true understanding of the MPA, which would help Frank's arguments in favor of enforcing the MPA.

On cross, expect David Boies to find out just why Silverstein handled the "mistake" as he did. I don't think it's unfair at all to suggest that, if it was an honest mistake, a more thorough and immediate remedy might have prevented the litigation from dragging out this long. Of course, Jamie's side does not believe it was a mistake. Rather, they contend that her version of Exhibit A was always intended to be executed, and the substitution of the more-favorable-to-Frank Exhibit A was in bad faith.

It will be interesting to see how Silverstein answers Boies on cross. If Frank's story is true, Silverstein might be forced to throw himself under the bus. If Jamie's is true, it's at least possible that we might be steaming toward a conclusion this evening. Susman v. Jamie was expected to be the highlight of the litigation, but her sudden unfamiliarity with basic legal terminology took the wind out of Susman's sails. Frank's side needs today's witnesses to strike a blow, and he needs to avoid land mines in the process. Jamie, represented by the ultra-competent David Boies, will search out those land mines.

Should be a fun day. Stay tuned.
---

Setting the stage for week two.

---
If you're new to the site, or would like a refresher on why we're here, you can check out the sort-of comprehensive trial guide I put together on the eve of the first day. Otherwise, let's take a few moments to talk about things to come this week and beyond.

The day will start with Jamie McCourt under direct examination from her own superstar trial attorney, David Boies. This was very much by design. By hammering Frank on the stand during the latter half of the first week and keeping Jamie to himself by the week's end, Boies effectively won the week. Frank, as would be expected of any of us, wilted some under direct, and Jamie hasn't had to suffer the same experience.

Until this week, that is. While Boies prefers to run at a pretty steady pace and use fatigue as a weapon, you can expect Frank's attorney, Stephen Susman, to attack aggressively. He'll use every available opportunity to force Jamie to concede that, yes, she was indeed concerned about the viability of the couple's business activity, and, yes, she did push for the MPA at the heart of this matter. At least that's what Susman will need to do to put his client in a position to own the Dodgers for the long run.

That's maybe a bigger issue than the trial itself. Yes, this litigation will determine the validity of the MPA. But that's likely just the first step. Whatever Judge Gordon's ruling, there are several specters lurking. First is the threat of continued litigation; whether it is by appeal or perhaps a different legal theory, whichever party loses on the MPA will surely extend this issue in the court room well past the end of next week. Next comes the bigger question: if a McCourt ends up with the team, will he or she have the financial wherewithal and public support to make it work?

It's not likely Jamie can walk with the team. Her lawyers concede that, if she wins on the MPA (and assuming that's the end of the litigation), neither McCourt would have the resources to take the other out. Besides, neither McCourt seems likely to willingly let the other control the team, regardless of who wins. No, if Jamie McCourt intends to own the Dodgers, she'd need help in the form of outside investors. Even more daunting, she'd need to get through Major League Baseball's approval process, which doesn't seem particularly promising at the moment.

For Frank, it's a bit easier, in theory at least. Win on the postnup, survive on whatever comes next, and leave no questions about who owns the club. However, there are voices ranging in volume from whispers to screams saying Frank simply doesn't have the money to keep the club himself. Especially if he's saddled with a hefty obligation to Jamie, the liquidity required to rescue the team from its self-imposed decline might be more than Frank could raise and sustain.

Or maybe not; if nothing else, Frank is a fighter whose ability to make something out of nothing is truly remarkable; it's how he got the Dodgers. In my book, the biggest question facing his long-term ability to own the Dodgers isn't cash, it's credibility. This protracted divorce has cost the Dodgers dearly in the goodwill department, and there is no question that "Anyone Else" is the fan favorite to own the Dodgers. And, unfortunately for Frank, the one surefire fix--winning--doesn't appear especially likely. Not when the young, cheap talent is no longer as young, as cheap, and, well, as talented.

But short of financial ruin or MLB intervention, Frank would get his chance if he survives the litigation. And how he'd handle that chance would be scrutinized as closely as an owner's decisions have ever been.

That's a conversation for a different day. Jamie's winning right now, and how she fares on the stand this week will go a long way toward telling us just how far in the future we should be talking. I checked into my hotel tonight, and I look forward to being at court bright and early tomorrow. Check back here for detailed, but infrequent updates. Follow me on Twitter (@DodgerDivorce) for immediate news and quick analysis.
---

Day one wrap.

---
One day into the McCourt divorce trial, this much is clear: Larry Silverstein's conflicting designations of whether the Dodgers are within the scope of the MPA was either an act of cold deceit or potentially the costliest scrivener's error in American legal history. If I'm getting ahead of myself, here's the context: there are two versions of the McCourt MPA. One of them specifies that the Dodgers are Frank's and Frank's alone. The other specifically excludes the Dodgers from the assets made Frank's by the MPA. Resolution of that issue will likely--but far from conclusively--determine the outcome of the litigation.

The day began with Judge Gordon ruling on a series of motions in limine. In English, this meant that he decided on some sorts of evidence which would or would not be admissible in trial. The first motion decided was perhaps the most confusing; each side claimed victory. Judge Gordon ruled that extrinsic evidence will not be allowed as to the MPA. It's not quite that simple, though; the ruling, as I heard it, covered only whether transmutation did or did not occur. Again, in English, outside evidence can still be allowed when relevant to prove or challenge other aspects of the MPA.

The remaining preliminary motions were a bit more straightforward. Both parties stipulated to the admissibility of the two versions of the MPA, which was expected. Jamie then lost on three consecutive points. First, Judge Gordon declined to admit the expert testimony of a lawyer Jamie brought in to testify on legal ethics. Judge Gordon informed Jamie that there were more than enough lawyers in the room to work through that point. Jamie also lost on a bid to admit the current value of the Dodgers assets into evidence. Judge Gordon said that the only relevant valuation at this stage concerns the time the documents were signed, though it might come into play later in the asset division context. Lastly, Jamie lost her argument to examine the MPA under Massachusetts law. This here's California.

Jamie's case in chief began with one of her attorneys, Dennis Wasser, quoting Sir Walter Scott: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, / When first we practise to deceive!" Spoiler alert: he's suggesting Frank cheated Jamie out of the Dodgers. He proceeded to score on a series of body blows; it didn't look good for Frank McCourt when Jamie's team displayed a copy of Larry Silverstein's handwritten notes with variants of the word "exclusive" showing up twice. "The evidence will show," Wasser said, "that [Jamie] questioned the original [version of the MPA]."

Frank's side, of course, disagrees. He says that the Exhibits--clearly described as "for courtesy"--don't hold nearly the same weight as the body of the MPA, which simply cares about title to the various properties. In fact, Frank's lead trial attorney, Steve Susman, called Jamie "likely the first such highly-educated, former CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation to try to get out of a contract she claimed she didn't understand." He didn't stop there, though. "Jamie is seeking to become the first spouse ever in the state of California to invalidate an MPA she proposed."

Perhaps the most surreal aspect of the litigation was something we've seen before: the absurd positions each side needs to take. Frank purchased the Dodgers "with zero experience [and] limited liquidity," one attorney said. Problem: that was Frank's attorney. Susman also characterized the supposed MPA drafting mistake as "insignificant and innocuous." If true, of course, we wouldn't be here today. He also said that "a junior high school student could understand" the effect of the MPA. Susman's a character, and brought a delightful sense of humor to an otherwise-stale proceeding. "Your honor, Jamie's testimony might be the most incredible thing this court has ever heard," he added.

Importantly to the litigation, Susman also claimed that Jamie McCourt "never saw a draft with an error in it." If true, that's a powerful point. The day dragged on, and drew to a merciful close with the couple's estate planning attorney, Leah Bishop, on the stand. Bishop testified that she "snapped" at Frank about the McCourts' lack of individual representation in the execution of the MPA, and that Jamie "had a fundamental misunderstanding" of its effect. She also claimed that Frank told her the MPA he now seeks to enforce was "not what it was supposed to be." Frank's attorneys will counter that those words had to do with something entirely different.

He'll have his chance soon enough. Once Susman cross-examines Bishop, Jamie's attorneys are expected to put Frank McCourt himself on the stand. David Boies, who earned a DNP: Coach's decision today, may well conduct the direct examination of Frank McCourt. Susman explained on the courthouse steps that he is excited for the opportunity to cross-examine Frank, as it is when his true story will come out.

I'll be back late tonight or tomorrow morning with some additional nuggets on the first day's events, as well as a preview of tomorrow's. If this post has seemed rambling, lengthy, and incoherent...well, it's about how I feel. Been a long day. And it gets longer: I will be on the Fox 11 10:00 news this evening to talk about the divorce from the fan's perspective. Gloria Allred will also be in studio, which will certainly be a new experience for me.
---
Let me know if you prefer this comprehensive sort of post, or if you would prefer several more focused ones. Today, this was the only way to go given other obligations, but I want to make the site as helpful as possible. In that vein, feel free to consult and pass along the viewer's guide a couple posts down. As always, I try to be as reachable as possible. Submit any questions or comments, and shoot me an e-mail if you'll be in the courthouse. There was certainly some room to spare this afternoon.

Lastly, look for a chat here featuring Molly Knight tomorrow afternoon. It's not finalized yet; she still needs to sign my Exhibit A that says I get to keep all the traffic she's bound to drive my way.
---

The McCourt Divorce: A Viewer's Guide.

The McCourt Divorce VG Final

Why haven't the McCourts settled?

---
Only four days remain before the McCourts will face off in court to determine ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and every indication is that the trial will begin as scheduled. While it appeared that the possibility of a settlement was gathering momentum only a couple weeks ago, my sources are insistent that the trial will go forward. Other observers are hearing the same thing, and I now feel confident enough that I have booked flights and hotel down the street from the courthouse.

So why have the McCourts been unable to reach a settlement? Principally, I think it has to do with how Frank McCourt does business. A line of Frank's trial brief sums it up nicely:

Frank is an entrepreneur at heart and has an extreme tolerance for risky ventures that, potentially, could have big returns.

While that sentence was written to provide background for how the McCourts got rich and why Jamie supposedly wanted the MPA, I think it applies here, too.

Settling is safe. Trial is risky. But the rewards of winning at trial are enormous. He'd preserve his vast net worth. Dodgers ownership would seem to be safely in McCourt hands for generations to come. And Jamie's name and image would be in the dumpster. Winning at trial represents the best possible outcome for Frank, and, as his attorneys tell the court, he has an extreme tolerance for the risks associated with litigating this matter until the end.

As for Jamie's part, she, too, feels well-prepared for trial. Her argument relies on several theories that, she argues, should lead the court to conclude that the MPA either never existed or should be enforced. As we did with Frank above, let's look at an excerpt from Jamie's trial brief that has meaning beyond its context:

Jamie trusted Frank as her marital and business partner to make decisions with respect to the way their businesses were structured, finances were arranged, and regarding tax planning matters. Jamie trusted Frank [and Bingham attoryney Lawrence Silverstein] not to present her with something that took away her rights to the very thing that was a life-long dream for her--owning a baseball team, which also represented the vast bulk of the parties' marital estate.

Later:

Jamie is an intelligent business woman who would never have knowingly given up her interest in the Dodger Assets in return for the "protection" of residential properties worth far less.

The emphasis is Jamie's attorneys'. And it is here we reach the impasse: Frank builds his case on the notion that Jamie had always sought protection from Frank's risky business ventures, which included the purchase of the Dodgers. Jamie contends that she never meant such protection to strip her of the assets in the context of the divorce, and that she never considered the Dodgers all that risky, anyway.

It's impossible to say how much of this is real, and how much is posturing. I do know that an awful lot of damage has been done, and each party is pretty well entrenched. Frank sees, in the trial, the opportunity of a lifetime, and he fervently believes the facts and law are on his side. Jamie feels aggrieved, wronged, and cheated. She believes that the court can come to no valid conclusion other than to rule the MPA null and void.

And that's why we're here today, counting down the hours to trial. Might it be settled in the eleventh hour? Perhaps. But Frank wouldn't hit his home run, and Jamie wouldn't get her vindication. A settlement remains the safe play, but Frank doesn't play safe. A settlement remains the quiet play, but Jamie doesn't play quiet. It's a fluid situation, but it sure looks like we have busy weeks ahead. My bags are packed.
---

Having cake and eating it, too.

---
In recently filed court documents related to the divorce, Frank McCourt essentially argues that Jamie wanted the protection of the MPA with none of its restrictions. Jamie has attacked the MPA, which purports to leave her with no claim to the Dodgers, under several legal theories. One of her favorite positions during the litigation has been that her lifelong dream has been to own a baseball team. She uses this to demonstrate that she would never knowingly sign away her rights to Dodgers ownership.

Frank's latest filings, several details of which are available in this TMZ report, claim that Jamie did not support the purchase of the Dodgers, at least on the terms of the transaction. As you know, Frank McCourt bought the club largely, if not entirely, on credit. Uncomfortable with the riskiness of the transaction, Frank claims, Jamie was eager to protect her own interests using the same division of property the couple had put in place for other business ventures. The couple's residential real estate holdings would be Jamie's property, and the business entities Frank's.

Of course, the sequence of events following the Dodgers purchase was, if not entirely unpredictable, still massively shocking. The world turned upside down; the Dodgers have about doubled in value, while the real estate market is in shambles. It is here that Frank suggests Jamie developed a sense of opportunism. He contends that, in 2008, Jamie asked for the couple's agreement to be modified to give her half the Dodgers. Frank rejected her request, and the couple separated the following summer.

It would be inappropriate to label only Jamie with the "opportunist" tag. Whether the culmination of years of planning or simply by way of happenstance, Frank essentially found himself in a pretty spot. What he got in the MPA--the Dodgers--had grown in value, while his soon-to-be-ex-wife's prospective take had shrunk dramatically. Refusing to revisit the MPA surely doomed the marriage, as he must have known it would.

Nothing all that new comes out of what I've seen from today's filings. The takeaway is this: to the extent the McCourts' intentions matter in determining the validity of the MPA, how the parties felt some time after executing the document is irrelevant. Their actions and words in the contemplation and construction of the MPA matter. The downstream consequences of the MPA do not. Put it this way: in this situation, cause means more than effect.
---

More MPA drama.

--
It's the little document that keeps on giving. Making its rounds in the news today is a motion filed by Jamie's legal team essentially asking the court to recognize her version of the post-nup--the one that does not specifically divest her of any interest in the Dodgers properties. According to her filing, the post-nup she signed in California--which did not include the now-famous Exhibit A listing the Dodgers as Frank's--should control. She argues that enforcing that particular document renders the team community property, entitling her to half its value.

For its part, Frank's legal team has two main counter-arguments. First, every version of the MPA--with or without Exhibit A--contemplates property specifically titled in each McCourt's name to be that McCourt's property in a divorce or creditor attack. Before we even get to the presence or absence of Exhibit A, the argument goes, the body of the MPA explicitly designates that "property titled in FRANK's name shall be FRANK's property, and property titled in JAMIE's name shall be JAMIE's property." Frank, of course, is the sole designated "control person" of the Dodgers, and the residential property is titled in Jamie's name.

That doesn't put the issue to bed, though. California family law judges have extremely broad discretion when it comes to these matters. If there was deceit involved, as Jamie alleges, Judge Gordon may well throw out the MPA altogether. I have to believe that if Jamie's team was able to prove that sort of bad faith dealing, the MPA--however strong--wouldn't stand a chance.

And that's exactly what Jamie says is going on here. According to her lawyers, she was presented the Exhibit A-less MPA to sign in California, which she did believing she was not signing away her rights to the Dodgers. After pen met paper and the document got back to the attorneys, she claims, the Exhibit was tacked on covertly.

Frank contends that not presenting the Exhibit along with the California MPA was a clerical error, corrected by attaching it afterwards. Frank and his attorneys claim that Jamie was fully aware of the effect of the MPA; indeed, they say, the MPA is directly in line with Jamie's wishes to build a nest egg safe from the perils attendant the family's businesses. According to someone close to the situation, Frank is prepared to go to trial on the issue, and is comfortable in his ability to support his version of the facts.

There's much more to this, but I think the takeaway is something we've known all along: Jamie's chances are best if she can prove some sort of deceit on Frank's part. Misleading her as to the scope of the MPA would qualify, and the issue is one of fact which must be determined at trial. Unless, of course, everyone decides they've had enough and can come together for a settlement.
---
Hope to delve into this more in a day or two, but I've got to get out to the Ravine. Shoot me an e-mail if you'll be at the game this evening and want to say hi. Looking forward to a spectacular sunset, and--hopefully--a win!
---

One long argument.

---
As the trial grows closer, and time for settlement becomes precious, several national outlets have cast their gaze back toward the McCourts. Through Business Week's Richard Siklos comes a detailed, engaging profile of Jamie. Visiting the office much more willing McCourt, Siklos describes a trip to Jamie Enterprises:

She pulls out a tribute video from happier days, before her husband of 30 years, Frank McCourt, fired her as chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team: Vin Scully, the team's legendary announcer, praises her "brains and energy"; Tommy Lasorda says "she does a wonderful job"; and the dean of UCLA's business school gushes that she is a role model for women who is a "gorgeous, energetic, smart, brilliant person." Jamie is shown hugging players and her sons, and swimming her morning laps at the McCourts' Beverly Hills mansion. At the end, the petite, now 56-year-old blonde says to the camera: "There's that myth about having it all at one time. I don't think that's true, but you can have a lot." 

That's pretty much Jamie McCourt, isn't it? Self-promotion is a wonderful tool, and it has served Jamie--and countless other extraordinarily successful people--quite well. But there's something just a bit off about showing a reporter a promotional video. Trying to play the media is one thing; trying to sell yourself to it is another.

Siklos' excellent piece offers another glimpse into the differences between the McCourts when it came to finances. He writes:

Unlike her husband, Jamie is a self-described "big worrier" when it comes to money. She was horrified, she says, when, early in the marriage, a sheriff appeared at their door to collect a debt related to her husband's business and when a lien was later taken out against their house. Because of this, the McCourts decided that their residences would be put solely in Jamie's name.

They were also dogged by money woes. A May 2003 internal memo to Frank and Jamie from a senior McCourt lieutenant entitled "here we go again" warned of a looming business and personal liquidity crisis if they didn't watch their spending. 

Nothing all too surprising here, is there? This fits with everything we've seen to this point. Jamie, for all her salesmanship and aggressive self-promotion, certainly seems a bit wiser when it comes to spending--relatively speaking anyway. That May 2003 memo is a bit disconcerting; as you'll recall, the McCourts purchased the Dodgers several months later.

But then again, the McCourts personal liquidity had little to do with their acquisition of the Dodgers. Though Siklos' piece again supports Frank's point that separating the assets was Jamie's idea, he also relates, through a source, that Jamie was often sharper and more pointed when it came to negotiations for the club. From the beginning, Jamie has painted the picture that she had a role something greater than ornamental. At least in the preliminary stages of McCourt ownership, that looks to have been accurate.

Siklos' reporting also reveals an interesting interplay between the attorney who drafted the MPA, Larry Silverstein, and the attorney the McCourts engaged to review it, Leah Bishop:

In one e-mail exchange between Bishop and Silverstein, the Boston lawyer who wrote the original MPA, Silverstein told Bishop that there hadn't been a mistake in the original MPA, writing, "I recall [Jamie] saying in those days she didn't care about the business assets so long as she had her separate pool." In response to Silverstein's e-mail, Jamie angrily wrote that this was "preposterous....Don't forget, I was a divorce lawyer there and I am really clear on what the intended distributions were to be...my fault, I guess, for not having read the post marital document and believing that you were preserving the status quo." 

That's sort of what we've been saying all along, isn't it? "My fault, I guess, for not having read the post marital document and believing you were reporting the status quo." As a lawyer, Jamie is held to a higher standard in negotiations like this. She is presumed to have knowledge greater than a non-lawyer, and failure to mind her p's and q's, as it were, is a glaring misstep.

But that's not all there is to the picture. Is it fair to hold her to that standard when dealing with her husband of more than two decades? While the McCourts' marital relationship had always seemed contentious--they have been portrayed as arguing all the time--that's just how it works for some couples. Countless couples. The existence of conflict does not necessarily mean the absence of love, and I believe it entirely possible Jamie did trust Frank not to put her in this position.

Which raises a difficult question: who should suffer for their mistake? Frank for his alleged deceit? Or Jamie for her alleged naivete?

As the trial looms, Jamie knows firsthand how intractable Frank can be. "I'm disappointed, not surprised," she says. Neither, presumably, is Frank. In better days, he once said of their four-decade partnership: "It's been one long argument, actually."

While the bitterness and animosity might not fade, the long argument, at least, is soon to conclude.
---

The beginning of the end.

---
According to several people I spoke with this weekend, and as has been ably reported by Bill Shaikin, Jamie McCourt is ready to drop her press for the Dodgers. This move essentially maps out the wind-down of the divorce, and ensures the team will stay in the McCourt name, even if Jamie doesn't. There are two primary motivating factors at work.

First, both McCourts have been clear about their desire for their four sons to own and operate the team. That, obviously, can't and won't happen if the Dodgers are sold in the divorce. It's been a bitter, contentious few months--if not years--but it appears both McCourts are now looking toward the future. And that future is certainly well served by putting personal discord aside and ensuring that the marriage's crown jewel--the Dodgers--is not sacrificed in the process.

Which brings us to money. A sale--court-ordered or otherwise--would devalue the team a great deal. It's a stressed asset at the moment, and neither McCourt would win if it had to be sold. Maybe the Dodgers will stay in the family for several generations, or maybe they'll sell out only a few years down the line. Either way, the point is the only smart move available is to keep the team in the family for now. Both McCourts know that, and that's precisely why there is so much momentum for a settlement now.

"Both McCourts." I think I've used that phrase more in this post than throughout the entire saga. While nothing is certain, and there are yet roadblocks ahead, it seems that both McCourts are interested in controlling their futures, rather than leaving them in the hands of the legal process. The only way they can guarantee the club stays in the family is to work together, and it looks like that's just what's happening.
---

A battle with several fronts.

---
If you had any doubt left about Frank McCourt, businessman, LA Weekly's Gene Maddaus has a story you might enjoy. From a tale full of alleged back-stabbings, several burned bridges, and an unhealthy lack of regard for the present, there emerges an interesting glimpse into the worsening troubles in the McCourt marriage:

[T]he central disagreement in the marriage apparently was between Jamie's desire for security and McCourt's appetite for risk.

[...]

"If you aren't on the same page," [Boston real estate Banker Jeff Ingram] wrote, "I sincerely hope you can have the conversation in the spirit of 'Look what we accomplished' and 'How do we want to spend our time going forward.' Please appreciate the moment and work together to determine what is best for you and your family. ... From a personal perspective, I really hope you can find a common ground."

It didn't happen. In November 2008, McCourt sent an e-mail to Ingram in which he contemplated raising an astounding $600 million in fresh equity to expand the business into a global sports enterprise. He seemed particularly excited because his two oldest sons, Drew and Travis, were onboard and eager to be seriously involved in the family business. This would prepare them for someday taking ownership of the team.

Of the $600 million, $47 million would go to the family, which McCourt thought would give Jamie more "peace of mind."

In reality, McCourt's ambitions could not have been in greater conflict with Jamie's desire for security. Ingram understood this better than anybody. In a one-line e-mail to McCourt, he wrote, "I assume you realize all eyes will be on Mama Bear to see how she embraces new direction."

In the midst of this conflict, the McCourts sat down for an estate-planning session.

There are two ways to characterize what happened next. For Jamie's part, she says didn't understand the full effect of the MPA until well after she signed it. She was shocked and scared to learn the assets would be split so unevenly in the event of divorce, and immediately began working with Frank to make the document comport with their true intentions.

This line of thinking also fits in with the portrayal of Frank as an opportunist above all else. In this sense, think of Frank McCourt as Barry Sanders, making his living by dancing behind the line, risking a loss, but possessing an uncanny knack for spotting the smallest opening and making a big gain. The problem, of course, is that when Frank McCourt wins, it's not at the expense of other teams or their fans...people get hurt.

That's one way of looking at it, anyway. I do think it's important to note that, as has become common, Frank declined to comment for this story. Presumably, he also declined to direct Maddaus to sources which might paint Frank in a more favorable light.

Though it has been to his detriment, Frank's been the much quieter of the two McCourts throughout the saga. His camp seems content to let Jamie and her support team win the headlines, which it has certainly done. It's sort of ironic. In court filings related to the divorce, Jamie says:

I know that Frank is very litigious and that he employs a 'scorched earth' litigation philosophy.

I don't think Jamie's PR campaign in the divorce can be described any other way.

Which, all things considered, is fine. All's fair in love and war, they say, and we've had one turn into the other here. I believe Frank is a ruthless, cunning businessman. I believe he's made a fortune at the direct expense of personal relationships and others' well-being. I believe he might be wired to not care about these things, capable desiring only to beat the guy across the table. And I certainly believe Jamie wants us to believe these things.
---

Plaschke's open letter to the McCourts: Sell the Dodgers.

---
The concept, as these things go, makes sense. But buried within is a sentiment I hear now and then, and would like to discuss for a moment:

C'mon, McCourts, stop glaring at each other long enough to look together at the reality. This is your way back to community respect. This is your way back to a lasting legacy. After spending the last 10 months trapped in a storm of boos and jeers and jokes, this is your way out.

Don't wait until a judge decides who owns the team, a decision that could be destructive to both of you. Sell it first and you both win.

Announce that, for the good of the city, you have each agreed to give up your fight for sole ownership and decided to work together to sell the team to a qualified owner.

You all know how I feel about this: it could work, in theory. It would have to be a joint decision, but I absolutely believe the best outcome for the McCourts involves them working together to resolve the situation. To let the team still be at issue when this heads to trial would be a strong indication that this is more about winning the divorce, rather than on the field. But we've been over that. Here's where I move away from Plaschke a bit:

If you keep fighting over the franchise, McCourts, you will destroy everything you built here, leaving the team as vacant and rudderless as that parting gift from Fox.

Besides, Frank, what if you win that fight? You know you can't afford to keep the team as a sole owner, so it will only mean several more years of flailing. And Jamie, what if you win? The team will have to be divided anyway because it will become community property, so a sale would probably happen anyway, only in a long and messy manner.

Sell now, together, cleanly, and there will be buyers lining up to celebrate and continue your success. Sell now, nobly, and there will be fans lining up to applaud you on your way back to Boston.

Each of these paragraphs presents a problem. As to the first: the divorce won't necessarily destroy everything the McCourts have built in Los Angeles, at least as far as is meaningful. For one, other than a couple playoff runs at the expense of future talent and a distressed fanbase displeased with ownership, just what have the McCourts built that would be so terrible to lose? If anything, they should want to stay and win. That's the only way to recovering credibility.

To the second paragraph...why are we sure Frank doesn't have the resources to run the team on his own? Yes, he's plead poverty throughout the divorce, and yes, he's planned to keep payroll relatively low while increasing revenues. But the first point is necessary legal posturing, and the second indicative more of what Frank wants out of the the Dodgers than what he is able to provide. The McCourts have taken nearly $400 million out of the club over the last several years. What indication is there that Frank couldn't have the money?

As for the third paragraph...would buyers really be lining up? The Dodgers are hard to value right now, because of the TV rights which will soon be coming back in-house. And, as has been discussed, there are just fewer people out there right now capable of buying something as expensive as the Dodgers. And finally, any sale on these sorts of terms wouldn't happen overnight. There's little reason to believe Frank and Jamie's teams could work well enough together during a long sale process.

It's not that I'm opposed to a sale. Ok, maybe I'm a little bit opposed. I guess, at the end of the day, a sale looks to me like taking the quick way out, and it poses as many problems as it resolves. It's entirely possible this all ends with the Dodgers hitting free agency of their own, as it were. I'm just not ready to believe it can happen on friendly terms at this point.

---

A sale would be the last resort.

---
The McCourts rambled about the news again yesterday, this time as the squabbling over cash led Commissioner Gordon to fire a shot across their joint bow. The Times' Bill Shaikin who, contrary to rumor, does not sleep at the courthouse, reports:

With each of the McCourts claiming to be low on cash, and with bills piling up, Los Angeles Superior Court CommissionerScott Gordon threatened to resolve both issues at once by putting the Dodgers on the block.

"The parties are unintentionally pushing the court toward an interesting position — selling the asset which is being fought over," Gordon said in a court hearing.

This led commentators near and far to speculate on the effect of a sale, especially in light of the Texas Rangers' situation. Thankfully, everyone--from Shaikin to most of the bloggers--took Gordon's message for exactly what it was: a stern criticism of the litigation's timbre and admonition to both Frank and Jamie that they need to tone down the hyperbole. 


The team's not going to be sold to cover interim divorce expenses. I know it, you know it, Frank and Jamie know it, and the court knows it. We've already seen exactly what the court might do if liquidity really is a dire problem. Remember when the couple's Cabo property was ordered sold? That's certainly the sort of action the court might take again should cash become necessary.


I take Gordon's remark as, more than anything else, a reflection on how acrimonious--and, really, tedious--this entire proceeding has become. While I get the strategic value of having six more weeks before this thing hits trial, I get the sense that most everyone connected to this saga is ready for the endgame to at least, you know, begin.


We'll see if it even happens to get that far. I think a settlement is increasingly likely, though I wouldn't expect one until the days approaching trial. There's so much at stake, both in dollars and pride, that my guess is whatever agreement might be reached will be negotiated down to the last practically available moment. 
---

Forensic staple analysis and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

---
The unsinkable Molly Knight has been out-Dodger Divorce-ing Dodger Divorce of late. She has this gargantuan piece rolling out in the July 26 issue of ESPN The Magazine, and it's really everything such a write-up could be. I think her only real mistake with it was not just turning it into a book. But that's neither here nor there. One of my favorite gems she uncovered is this particular point of contention between Frank and Jamie's legal teams:

[Jamie's attorney, David Boies,] has four reasons to believe the MPA will be overturned. Susman has an answer for each.

"First off, I don't even believe it exists," Boies says of the MPA. "Or at least not the piece of paper they claim to have saying Jamie signed away the Dodgers." Boies contends Frank pulled a switcheroo on his wife, that the document he had her sign just before the couple decamped for Los Angeles didn't mention the Dodgers.

According to Boies, the two schedules (listing his take and her take) tacked to the end of agreement (following the signature page) were switched after she signed. [Frank's attorney, Stephen Susman,] says: nonsense. He's getting a forensics expert to verify that the original staples are still in place on the original document.

Surely running on fumes, Knight managed to update us today on the status of this skirmish:

Two forensic scientists -- one from each side -- determined that a document at the crux of the battle over Frank and Jamie McCourt's estimated billion-dollar fortune has not been tampered with, according to Stephen Susman, Frank McCourt's chief legal counsel.

[...]

The agreement was extracted from a vault at the Boston law firm of Bingham McCutchen and examined by scientists from each team in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

Jamie McCourt's lawyers contend that there are six different copies of the document, and tests show that three of them -- signed at a different time than the other three, the lawyers said -- did not include Schedule A when Jamie McCourt signed them. Schedule A lists the assets Frank McCourt claims he is entitled to -- including the Dodgers.

Susman said the scientists found the document contained the original staple from 2004. In addition, an imprint of Jamie McCourt's signature was determined to exist on the page that names Frank as sole owner -- a potentially devastating blow to Jamie's chances of being given half the team in the divorce settlement.

"We've got the same staple and her signature on something she claims she never signed," says Susman. "Which proves all along she was not telling the truth."

Good grief. Nearly ten months and tens of thousands of words after we started down this path, we're fighting about staples. This melodrama has either taken a turn for the even-more-absurd or I have been seriously mislead about the gravity of forensic science by CSI and Dexter. 

I shouldn't dismiss this controversy so lightly. If Frank (or his lawyers) really did slip the Asset Schedule by Jamie during the post-nup's conception, that would be a big, big problem. But--even before considering modern science's contribution to the McCourt divorce--I think there's a major hole in that theory: if it was anywhere close to the truth, Jamie would have been screaming about it long ago.

You might remember that, in those heady days of the Summer of 2008, when Casey Blake was worth Carlos Santana and Manny Ramirez was some sort of cyborg sent to Earth to dominate National League pitching, Jamie started to make noise about revoking the post-nup. The couple's estate planning attorney's notes from a meeting from the then-married McCourts read in part:

SP stands for Separate Property and Exhibit A, unfortunately for Jamie, refers to the Asset Schedule she now claims was slipped by her in some sort of clandestine legal kung-fu. And it's here I see the biggest problem in her attack: if she had really been tricked, she would have known well before the divorce went down. Her legal team wouldn't have sat on what would have been its strongest weapon in the fight against the post-nup.


I've said all along I think Frank's in pretty good shape provided he didn't somehow deceive Jamie in the creation of the post-nup. I feel comfortable saying the same thing today. And now with the help of a team of crack scientists and a quick look into the post-nup's past, I'm still not convinced this was anything more than a bad bet on Jamie's part. 
---

Is MLB approval of potential owners on the chopping block?

---
I meant to will have something more tonight or tomorrow on what the Texas Rangers' bankruptcy and surrounding information means for our situation, but Craig Calcaterra, as he's done before, sort of beat me to at least one punch. Discussing the possibility that the bankruptcy court might force the Rangers to be sold at auction, damn MLB's concerns, Craig writes:

At which point it would be interesting to see what, if anything, Major League Baseball does about it. Because remember: MLB likes to pretend that its federally-created antitrust exemption allows it to accept or reject would-be team owners with impunity.  I assume that they're not going to try and pull rank over a bankruptcy judge on this point -- this sale is complicated enough already -- but if they don't, does it not put an end to the fiction that they can pick and choose new owners?

From my vantage point, this has major implications for the Dodgers' situation. If a federal judge directs the Rangers to be sold at auction, Major League Baseball will surely fight to uphold its own constitution, which mandates approval of new owners by the affirmative vote of at least 75 percent of current owners. Bankruptcy courts are a little different than other federal courts, in that they can be a little more...well, cavalier. Better put, a bankruptcy judge is less likely to worry about a decision's impact on outside parties than a standard federal district court judge might.


But the precedent has largely the same effect. If the Rangers are sold at auction, with disregard for MLB's rules, we might find out just how serious Jamie is about owning the team. If she wins on the post-nup, she can rely on the Rangers sale in her own pursuit of the Dodgers (presumably with the help of additional investors). If a judge in a bankruptcy court can determine the buyer in a judicially-directed sale, she will argue, doesn't that mean Commissioner Gordon can do largely the same thing? 


I continue to believe Frank is in a good position on the post-nup, though another close watcher of the situation has privately expressed the opposite opinion of late. In any case, I've always felt Jamie's gambit had a dead end of sorts: there's no way she gets 75% of baseball's owners to approve a potential bid. Not at this point. However, the possible court-ordered auction sale of the Rangers might give her new hope. You can bet her attorneys will be watching closely. We will be.
---

Well, what do you know.

---

I guess I'm back from my bloggy vacation. A few days ago, the Times' Bill Shaikin (who else?) reported that Frank McCourt has added famed trial lawyer Stephen Susman to his legal team. Susman, who says it was always the plan for him to take the lead on Frank's case if a trial became a likelihood, claims that "everyone" would like to see the case settle. 

The problem with that, of course, is that you don't really hire the Stephen Susmans and David Boieses of the world if you don't expect to go to trial. Unless, that is, these expensive lawyers are meant to frighten the other side into settling. Now that both Frank and Jamie have superstar trial litigators, though, such showmanship seems a little unnecessary. After running through Frank and Jamie's respective flotillas of attorneys, Am Law Daily provides a final nugget of interest, which I'll quote from Shaikin's piece:

Susman said he has teamed with Boies on occasion, including a current case in which the two are representing commercial fishermen harmed by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Susman said he could recall facing Boies in two trials, with each lawyer winning one.

"This is the tiebreaker," Susman said.

We're slowly drawing toward a conclusion, as the trial is set to begin on August 30. As of now, I'm not inclined to believe this is destined for a quick or quiet settlement. The closer she pushes to trial--and the more noise she makes--the greater Jamie's leverage (and eventual windfall). For Frank, the value of settling the case peaked long ago, well before the bombs started going off around the organization. Simply put, Frank and Jamie's combined interest in settling is much less now than it might have been several months ago.

---

Thanks to those who expressed support either by comments or emails. As I said, I don't intend in the least on stepping away. It's just been a hectic few weeks.

---

Jamie tells Frank to pay up.

---
According to TMZ, Frank has not paid Jamie the required amount of temporary spousal support, some $637,159 per month. It's unclear from the report how far behind on the payments Jamie alleges Frank has fallen, but it appears that Jamie is again barking up the Dodgers perquisites tree. Frank, according to the report, has not paid Jamie because he believes she owes him millions. Withholding her allowance, it seems, would be some sort of set-off exercise.

Saddled with expenses related to the former couple's several properties, Jamie claims her monthly expenses run about $1 million, including tens of thousands of dollars for personal expenses and donations. This, to me, is where this story starts to lose touch with reality. Say someone loses their job but has a fair amount of money saved, enough so they wouldn't have to change their lifestyle. Wouldn't that person, until their situation stabilized, at least consider the necessity of their expenses in the interim?

Among her monthly bills, Jamie lists just over $30,000 in professional fees. This tells me her lawyers are still working on IOU's, and they intend to recover their costs from Frank's side. Several of Jamie's attorneys cannot be billing much less than $1,000 per hour, and I would be floored if they're managing to rack up as little as $30,000 each month in fees. Saying all this hand-wringing over money issues is a game of chess overcomplicates things; really, neither side wants to set the precedent of paying the bills, even as we're mere months away from a final resolution. We hope.
---