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.
- Merry Christmas from HBT! 74
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 86
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 40
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 15
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 120
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 65
- Curt Schilling goes after Obama, says Ronald Reagan would watch “The Interview” (227)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (120)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (96)
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year (86)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)