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.
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 22
- Denard Span headed back to DL with hip inflammation, unlikely to return this season 2
- Report: Barry Bonds loses collusion case against MLB 39
- Jessica Mendoza to sit in for Curt Schilling on Sunday Night Baseball this week 78
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights 78
- MLB “actively studying” fan safety; Phillies plan to expand netting at Citizens Bank Park 28
- Marlins might move in and lower the fences at Marlins Park 26
- Astros beat the suddenly skidding Yankees, top last year’s win total 30
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (201)
- Curt Schilling taken off of Little League World Series duty for making a really bad tweet (169)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Phillies announcer calls Mets fans “obnoxious” (122)
- Let’s all argue about team chemistry again (118)