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.
- Mariners end Jesus Montero’s season 18
- Troy Tulowitzki says he’ll retire before he switches positions 20
- Mike Trout is the best MVP choice, but . . . 18
- Baseball is dying, you guys, because no one would recognize Mike Trout in a bar 65
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 75
- Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants 42
- Could women play major league baseball? Sure. Right now, though, the deck is stacked against them. 217
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights 63
- Could women play major league baseball? Sure. Right now, though, the deck is stacked against them. (217)
- Forgiveness for Pete Rose? Not in this lifetime (145)
- Albert Pujols plays the “you never played the game!” card (104)
- Great Moments in Drug Testing and Punishment: The NFL Edition (101)
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights (75)