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: Monday’s scores and highlights 29
- Cliff Lee struggles in first start back from disabled list 8
- On the 10th anniversary of his MLB debut, let’s appreciate David Wright 29
- And That Happened: Sunday’s scores and highlights 36
- Odrisamer Despaigne loses his no-hitter with two outs in the eighth inning 8
- Brandon Belt headed to disabled list with concussion 5
- Cardinals are interested in David Price, but “would want a financial commitment” from him 47
- Blue Jays, Giants “taking their best shot” at Chase Utley 19
- Baseball is dying, you guys (148)
- Luke Scott released from Korean team after calling coach a “liar” and a “coward” (108)
- Watch Derek Jeter tell Joe Buck to get the heck out of the clubhouse (91)
- Adam Wainwright follows the rules and pays the price (90)
- The Astros did not sign number one overall pick Brady Aiken. This is a big deal. (90)