Sep 21, 2010, 3:36 PM EST
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.
- Great Moments in Media Arrogance: Marshawn Lynch edition 118
- Nationals sign former Blue Jays closer Casey Janssen 10
- Ichiro Suzuki’s deal with the Marlins is worth $2 million 30
- Orioles acquire outfielder Travis Snider from Pirates 35
- Not so fast on the Bud Selig Hall of Fame talk 50
- Blue Jays sign president and CEO Paul Beeston to extension through 2015 26
- Reds sign four-year contract extension with Devin Mesoraco 11
- The Yankees are going to try to get out of paying A-Rod his contract incentives 82
- Rob Manfred, new Major League Baseball commissioner, suggests ban on defensive shifts (118)
- Great Moments in Media Arrogance: Marshawn Lynch edition (118)
- Why “Deflategate” would never happen in baseball (93)
- The Yankees are going to try to get out of paying A-Rod his contract incentives (82)
- Comments of the Day: some of you guys aren’t big Bud Selig fans (77)