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.
- Jose Altuve breaks Craig Biggio’s franchise record, tallying his 211th hit of the season 4
- Orioles beat Blue Jays to clinch AL East title 21
- Tanner Roark dominates as Nationals clinch NL East 18
- Masahiro Tanaka to pitch on Sunday 9
- Astros shut down George Springer for the season 0
- The Blue Jays will make a qualifying offer to Melky Cabrera 24
- And That Happened: Monday’s scores and highlights 34
- MLB suspends Jonathan Papelbon seven games for incident during Sunday’s game 42
- Chris Davis suspended 25 games for amphetamine use (92)
- A few thoughts about the discrimination lawsuit against the Mets (91)
- Giancarlo Stanton diagnosed with multiple facial fractures and dental damage (91)
- Bud Selig can’t remember the last domestic violence incident in Major League Baseball (88)
- A couple of initial thoughts on the Chris Davis suspension (83)