Divorcing the Dodgers

The high profile story of the ongoing divorce proceedings between Dodger owners Frank and Jamie McCourt should be closer to settlement in one month.  Not the complete divorce, but that of how the Los Angeles Dodgers will be affected.  The New York Times reports that the 2004 limited partnership, that bought the Dodgers with 430 million leveraged dollars, is at the helm of the couple's battle.

Mrs. McCourt, fired as the Dodger's chief executive during last season's playoffs, is perusing her claim of the team.  Mr. McCourt's legal team sees it as a contract dispute, as Mrs. McCourt already has claims on the couple's homes while the team is Mr. McCourt's property, per a single document signed by the couple during their 31-yer marriage.

The document, drafted in Boston, showing homes as hers and business assets as his, now translates to $75 million to $100 million for the seven residential properties and more than $700 million for the Dodgers.

The contract was set up, and both parties agree on this, to protect the homes from creditors as Mr. McCourt often made high-leveraged deals, just like the one to buy the Dodgers.

There is another document, this one provided to Major League Baseball, certifying Mr. McCourt as the sole owner of the team. The deal to purchase the Dodgers was financed by the News Corporation and banks do list the McCourt partnership as the sole owner, instead of the usual syndicate. 

Fans are upset about money being spent on anything but the team or threatening the franchise. 

Stephen Susman, Mr. McCourt's divorce attorney, maintains that Mrs. McCourt has no true interest in the Dodgers.  Mrs. McCourt says, however, that she has "dreamed of owning a baseball team" since childhood and her "ultimate goal is to be a co-owner and executive of the Dodgers."

Mrs. McCourt's attorney, David Boies, is setting a stage for sexual injustice, an angry husband, and a woman deprived of fair alimony.  He is seeking half the appreciation of the Dodgers due the California's state community property law. 

Boies also contends that the document on the team's ownership is fraudulent. Susman simply claims that there was simply a typographical error. 

Earlier copies showed the team as community property, and that under California family laws, each spouse has an equal interest regardless of whose name it is held under.  If one spouse is given a disproportionate share the document becomes invalid.

Experts in family law agree that the case is complex, as a home equity loan was taken out on at least one of the couple's properties to help finance Mr. McCourt's business concerns.  The loan proof of the commingling between business ownership and marital property.

Anthony Miller, professor of family law at Pepperdine University, submits that one of the key purposes behind community property laws is to help protect one of the partners, and that even though their agreement was made regarding debt, it also serves to try and avoid California laws.

If you have questions about family or divorce laws in your state, contact a qualified Family Law Attorney near you.