Sep 21, 2010, 3:36 PM EDT
The nuances of the dispute between Frank and Jamie are kind of technical inasmuch as they involve the operation and effect of a legal document governing the McCourts’ assets, Dodgers included.
But one thing that makes things simple is when the lawyer who drafted the thing testifies under oath that he messed with the document after it was signed by the parties, changing it from one that split the Dodgers between Frank and Jamie to one that gave the team solely to Frank. Which is what happened in court this morning. Read the L.A. Times’ account of the testimony. It’s brutal.
I’m obviously not following this thing filing-by-filing and exhibit-by-exhibit, but I have a hard time seeing how a judge can give legal effect to a document that a lawyer admitted under oath was fundamentally altered after its execution. And if he doesn’t, it means the Dodgers are joint property. Which means that, to finish off the divorce, either Frank or Jamie will have to buy the other one out.
And since they don’t have the cash for that, it would mean the team would have to be sold.
- Stephen Strasburg exits start with apparent side injury 5
- In the wake of the Miguel Cabrera injury the Tigers have few good options 2
- Mets general manager Sandy Alderson says Terry Collins’ job is safe 6
- Calf injury sends Miguel Cabrera to the disabled list for the first time in his career 4
- Settling the Score: Friday’s results 18
- Rangers designate Neftali Feliz for assignment, activate Matt Harrison 7
- Anibal Sanchez loses his bid for a no-hitter with one out in the eighth inning 11
- The Yankees, A-Rod resolve their dispute over the $6 million milestone bonus 29
- Settling the Scores: Sunday’s results (99)
- Mike Scioscia says Josh Hamilton should apologize to Angels owner Arte Moreno (88)
- What Yasiel Puig being a pain in the butt means. And what it doesn’t mean. (78)
- Report: Jerry Dipoto “definitely out” as Angels GM (77)
- Brian Dozier is the best second baseman in baseball (72)