Jamie's not headed back to the office.

---
Per the AP.

Court Commissioner Scott Gordon said that there was no California law supporting her stance. I know you were all waiting for pool news, too, and here it is*: Jamie will have to just make do with that ever-so-small pool at the $27 million Malibu beach house. And the Pacific Ocean, of course. No word on whether Jamie's request for a restraining order was granted, but it seems likely, as Gordon is giving each McCourt two trips to the other's house to pick up personal belongings. Both parties have also been enjoined from removing the other's name from credit cards.

*Update: TMZ got their facts wrong the first time around. Jamie gets 6am-2pm indoor pool use at the Holmby Hills residence that Frank will keep through the proceedings. Sorry folks.

**Update to the update: Frank's not staying at that house after all. He'll be at an undisclosed location for now. Guess here is as far from Los Angeles as a G-IV can take him a posh hotel.

Carla Hall of the LA Times reports:

Although [Jamie's] attorneys had argued that [her reinstatement bid] was simply a matter of returning her to the “marital status quo,” Commissioner Scott Gordon found otherwise.

“From an employment analysis, there’s no law that would support the court reinstating an employee,” Gordon said. The commissioner said that the issue of whether the team is community property is a complex issue that should be decided at trial, not at the emergency hearing he was presiding over today.

More to follow...and am I the only one getting a kick out of "Commissioner Gordon"? Only in L.A....and it gets better: Commissioner Gordon's chambers have an unobstructed view of Dodger Stadium. If a clever reader can Photoshop a Matt Kemp batsignal, his or her work will be featured on such prominent websites as: this one.

Also, that AP article mentioning Commissioner Gordon's view notes that Jamie might have another opportunity to ask for reinstatement if the team is declared community property. As of this morning, the first hearing in that mess of litigation was scheduled for November 30, but the unrelated December 1 hearing on maintenance was pushed to December 15, so I'm not confident this morning's schedule is still accurate.

Some fairly important developments from Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times. Most notably, the Dodgers will not be allowed to participate as a party to the case. This doesn't mean they won't be involved, but it certainly limits their ability to steer the litigation. Additionally, Jamie's attorneys don't expect the battle for ownership of the Dodgers to begin in earnest until the calendar flips to 2010. We've seen some well-known family law attorneys speculate that this might drag out over the course of 24-36 months, so pull up a comfortable chair and grab your popcorn.

Update: No, I'm not the only one amused by "Commissioner Gordon." Some fun stuff in the comments at Dodger Thoughts.

I'll have a more organized reaction to today's proceedings up a little bit later, along with a little surprise.
---

A conversation I've been avoiding.

---
Jamie's asking for a whole lot of money. We're going to temporarily adopt $487,634 monthly as her goal, because there's no way she'll be reinstated as Dodgers CEO. This, as we've discussed, also seems unreasonable, as Frank claims she's been paid her salary through December--making the higher figure unjustifiable during the time for which she's been paid.

Randy Youngman of the Orange County Register has a problem with Jamie's demands. Representing a growing sentiment out there amongst journalists and fans, Youngman writes:

So it's not the zeros and dollar signs in Jamie's court filing that are so repugnant; it's her attempt to justify why she "needs" an allowance of a half-million a month. According to documents obtained and published by The Associated Press, Jamie told the court the money would cover unlimited travel expenses, access to Net Jets private planes, security while traveling to dangerous locations (Dodger Stadium?), five-star hotel accommodations, business dinners five nights per week, business lunches five days per week, flowers in the office (what office?), hair and makeup for Dodgers events …

Makeup? Why didn't she just say that at the beginning? We all know how expensive that can be. I have to pay my monthly mascara (I mean football eyeblack) tab in installments.

In this economy, it's outrageous and embarrassing for her to publicly declare she requires such perks, especially when so many Dodgers fans are struggling to scrape up the money to buy single-game tickets. 

As fairness and justice go, Youngman's right. I dream of one day making in a year what Jamie asks for per month. But life isn't fair. One of the benefits of amassing unbelievable wealth in this country is that you can live a pretty outrageous lifestyle. Fair or not, that's what it is. A divorce in a community property state should, in theory, leave each person in approximately the same financial position alone as if the two were combined. While it is easy to criticize Jamie for begging the court to allow her such luxuries, what is the alternative? That Frank essentially double his net worth at the expense of his ex-wife, who, by many accounts, played a huge role in the family's accession to wealth? 


There's something else behind Jamie's demands, as well. From a PR perspective, it's horrible for her to be making such demands of the court. But from a legal perspective, it's absolutely necessary. In negotiations, whether within or without a court room, concessions are forever. Realistically, Jamie has no hope of getting anything she doesn't ask for right now. This being the case, her demands at this stage must border on the absurd. 


While I have a bit of fun joking about Jamie's need for a sufficiently-sized swimming pool--the one at the $27 million Malibu beach house just won't do!--I'm not going to crush Jamie for seeking the resources necessary to enjoy the lifestyle she and Frank spent 29.96 years achieving. I can understand how her demands could be offensive to some, and I fully recognize our collective right to think her lifestyle unnecessary, wasteful, and inappropriate given our current plight. But she's doing what she has to do in her demands, and, in this little corner of the internet, I can respect that.
---

We've gone international.

---
George Kimball of the Irish Times discusses Jamie's indulgent tendencies and pokes fun at her pool-access demands. He then writes:

None of this is likely to go down well with Dodgers fans already disgruntled by the McCourts’ history of penury with respect to the free agent market.

And the truth is, by the time this convoluted case is resolved Jamie may well be as capable of buying out Frank as Frank is of buying out Jamie.

Isn't that just delightful? Kimball, evidently familiar with California divorce law, concludes that the court will ignore the asset-transfer agreement and that the club's value will be split. He also wonders how Jamie can make herself out to be an integral part of the Dodgers while seeking unfettered lap pool access from 8am-2pm daily. 

The first court date, November 5, is to hear Jamie's petition to be reinstated as CEO of the Dodgers. Let's be real here, people: the judge ain't gonna do it. And that's probably fine with Jamie, too. She doesn't want to deal with Frank and Dennis Mannion and the rest. But she absolutely had to ask for it, as painting herself as a key member of the organization might be tremendously valuable to her case.

Well, that and she's been relatively fortunate so far in that the maintenance figure widely discussed now is the if-she's-reinstated $320,967 monthly allowance. What she really wants is $487,634, justified by the loss of income suffered by her firing. 

If Frank's lawyers have any idea what they're doing, however, they'll quickly note that she's already been paid her salary through the end of the year, making the higher maintenance figure Jamie seeks pretty damn ridiculous. I don't know what the timing of all this was--it's very possible Frank didn't pay her salary until after she filed. But I do know that if she asked for money she had already been given once, she'll be off to a tough start with the judge. We'll just have to stay tuned to "As the McCourts Turn." 
---

Who owns the Dodgers?

This, friends, is the $800 million question, and I'd imagine we'll spend much of the next few months discussing it. This post won't hit everything, but I'm hoping it serves as a sufficient primer.

This is all subject to change once we see the documents. For now, all we have are Jamie's account in her application and various newspaper reports.

The agreement


In 2004, Frank and Jamie executed an asset-transfer agreement which gave Frank the Dodgers and Jamie the couple's residences. The family lawyer supervised the process, and Jamie was not represented by independent counsel. Among other things, the agreement may serve to protect the couple's personal assets from creditors in the event the Dodgers failed.

Frank's position

Frank's lawyer has told the LA Times he is the sole owner of the Dodgers, relying on the signed asset-transfer agreement. Frank will also note that he is listed as the owner and "control person" of the team to Major League Baseball.

Jamie's position

Jamie's application contends that the asset-transfer agreement is ineffective to divest her of her interest in the Dodgers. She says she thought the document was paperwork required to maintain the status quo of their ownership interests upon the move to California. She also says she never intended to transfer her interest in the Dodgers to Frank and that he essentially tricked her into doing it. Finally, Jamie asserts that Frank confirmed to their estate lawyer than he didn't mean the document to strip Jamie's ownership of the Dodgers (or his interest in the residences).

The unsigned agreement


According to Jamie's accounts, the couple asked the estate lawyer to draw up a new agreement confirming Jamie's position. This document was signature-ready in August 2008. Jamie says that Frank "repeatedly found reasons to avoid" signing the document, and that at some point in 2009, Frank told Jamie he wouldn't be signing them at all. That seems to me to be the breaking point of the marriage and the epicenter of this maelstrom.

So what's going on?


A whole lot. Both parties' positions and likely arguments have serious flaws. Remember that Jamie practiced law for over 20 years. She spent ten years as General Counsel to the McCourt Company, which was responsible for the real estate development business which propelled the couple toward extreme wealth.

Here's the thing: courts don't like it when lawyers use the "he tricked me" argument. Jamie's contention that she didn't know the effect of the document she signed will be much less effective than your average divorcee's. Between her requests for a pool large enough for long-distance swimming and unfettered access to Dodger greats, Jamie will have to explain to the judge why she didn't at least consult independent counsel. The judge is going to want to know why a successful, experienced lawyer should be able to say she was fooled into signing a document which gave up more rights than she intended.

Frank has problems here, too. Agreements are generally invalid in the absence of consideration; that is, both parties should generally give something up in order to get something back. Here, a judge will want to know what Jamie was getting in exchange for her rights to the Dodgers. The residences might not be enough, and Frank's lawyers will had better know this.

Frank will likely say that Jamie received peace of mind from the arrangement. She admits in her filings that she had always been concerned the real estate development business would fail and the couple would lose everything. That's why the residences were put in her name and not offered as security for the debts of the business. Jamie says she thought the signed agreement served only to maintain this arrangement as it concerns the Dodgers.

The weight the court gives the signed agreement will be ground zero of the battle for the Dodgers, and it's impossible to speculate as to what the court will do with this little information. I hope I've given you a solid foundation for the tempest to come. The future of our franchise is at stake, and the organization will be severely handcuffed until the question of ownership is resolved.

Jamie's side.

All of this is culled from Jamie's application for divorce.

Jamie, the self-proclaimed "face of the Dodgers," wants the court to order Frank to pay her $320,967 yearly monthly if he restores Jamie to her $2 millon/year post as CEO of the club. Should he not want her to stay in that position, she's seeking a monthly payment of $487,634. And that's just maintenance. She will also seek half the marital assets, but that's a road for a later date.

Regardless of whether or not she's rehired, she wants to enjoy all the benefits and perquisites of being the owner of a MLB team. These include, among many other demands: travel by private jet, only the finest accomodations and restaurants wherever she travels, access to current and former Dodgers, and professional hair and makeup service.

Also listed is 24-hour security and a driver. While the court may indeed allow this request, I can't imagine Frank will let those positions be filled by Jeff Fuller, Jamie's former "Director of Protocol." Why?

*SPOILER ALERT*

Fuller geschmoigatied Jamie's geflavity with his googus. But that's for Frank's side, so we'll get to that later. Moving on:

Her most explosive allegations are that Frank systematically worked to cut her out of, well, nearly everything. In 2004, she claims, he manipulated her into basically signing away her share of the bulk of the marital assets. Things came to a head when he refused to revoke the agreement divesting her of the property. The situation got toxic, and he eventually cut her off entirely, going as far as to empty her accounts and stop paying her bills. He also, of course, fired her as CEO.

His alleged actions are best summed up by this topic heading in her application:

"Frank begins to rewrite history concerning our ownership of the dodgers and to drive me out of the organization."

So her position going forward is going to be that Frank coldly and calculatedly excised her from the family wealth over a number of years. If her allegations are true, Frank comes out to be quite the jerk here. With what sounds to the proletariat like unlimited wealth, he left her illiquid and jobless. He left our beloved Dodgers faceless.* He rendered her pool-less**. He stole from her what they had spent a lifetime building.

*If Jamie McCourt is the "face of the Dodgers," can Kershaw be the arm? Manny the hair? Billingsley the, you know, hindquarters? I could go on for days, but I sense you're not amused. Thank goodness Visanthe Shiancoe is a Viking footballer, not a Dodger. This could have got out of hand.

**My personal favorite of Jamie's lifestyle demands? Access to the indoor pool at the Charing Cross residence Frank will keep during the divorce. Of course, the $27 million Malibu beach house where she'll slum it through the proceedings has a pool already. But folks, please keep in mind that it is small and "unsuitable for long-distance swimming." Perhaps I've lived away from California for too long, but it seems to me that a beach house would afford all sorts of long-distance swimming opportunities. 

So we're running a little long here, but splitting up $1.2 billion empires takes time, people. In a nutshell, they built vast wealth, she says he tricked her into signing her part away, and that ain't right. I'm sure we'll refer back to her preliminary filings over and over again, but this is a good starting point.