Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm. The basis of the Jamie McCourt side of the dispute was that she had no idea that she was forfeiting her share of the ballclub by signing the agreement. I had been finding such a claim dubious since Jamie McCourt is an attorney at law and was one when she signed the agreement.
Despite this, the LA judge bought into the argument:
Quote:
"The parties had mistaken belief and no agreement as to the meaning of the agreement, the content of the agreement, and the effect of the [agreement] on their property and property rights," Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon wrote in his 100-page tentative ruling.
I'm sure that Ms. McCourt is pleased with the ruling, but it does not serve well as an endorsement of her legal skills. Would you want an attorney who can prove that she doesn't understand the legal documents she is signing?
If you think that this is the end, you are incorrect.
Quote:
"This ruling does nothing to change the ownership of the Dodgers," Marc Seltzer said in a statement. "Even without the marital property agreements in place, Jamie has no rights to the team. "Without the agreements in place, it becomes the court's job to determine which property is Frank's and which is Jamie's based on who holds legal title to the team. The facts are crystal clear on this point. The Dodgers are solely in Frank's name."
So now the Frank McCourt claim is that with or without the agreement, he remains the sole owner of the team.
How did the Dodgers manage to fund the McCourt lifestyle? Let’s start with salaries: Jamie McCourt received up to $2 million annually for her services as Dodgers’ CEO. Frank McCourt received up to $5 million annually from one or more businesses affiliated with the Dodgers. The Dodgers also paid up to $600,000 in annual salary to two of the McCourt children, one of whom was attending Stanford University and the other of whom had a full-time job at Goldman Sachs.
But $7.6 million a year was not nearly enough money to meet the needs (estimated at over $2 million a month) of the McCourt family. The McCourts spent money at a rate that turned heads, even in Los Angeles. Best known is the McCourt appetite for real estate. After buying the team, the McCourts proceeded to buy four homes in Los Angeles – two in Malibu, two near the Playboy Mansion – at a combined cost of around $89 million. This figure includes the estimated cost of McCourt “improvements” to these homes, including a roughly $14 million bill for tearing out tennis courts at one property and replacing them with a swimming pool. Then there were the other expenses: the vacation properties, the private jet, the private drivers, the hairdresser who worked exclusively for the McCourts five days a week … the list goes on and on. Here’s an expense that’s one of my personal favorites: over one 18-month period, Jamie McCourt paid over $100,000 to various florists, and charged the Dodgers for the expense.
Here’s an expense that’s one of my personal favorites: over one 18-month period, Jamie McCourt paid over $100,000 to various florists, and charged the Dodgers for the expense.
This is a low attack on Jamie McCourt. 100 grand over 18 months works out to only $1282 per week. We have to assume that Ms. McCourt had the horrible misfortune of losing five loved ones a week to disease or misadventure, and she was spending $250 a pop for their funeral flowers. That's 390 close friends or dear relatives she lost in just a year and a half. And for this she gets mocked?
This is the same thing that she did after the original divorce settlement where she signed away her interest in the team, and then later claimed that she had been deceived and was unaware that she was forfeiting her interest. The court ruled in her favor that time, so she probably figures she has nothing to lose by taking another shot and reneging on the second divorce settlement as well.
The hell of all this is that Jamie McCourt is a lawyer. She keeps portraying herself as a victim of confusing and deceitful agreements. Who would want a lawyer so easily tricked in business affairs?
She doesn't have to worry about anyone hiring her now though. Unless she somehow loses on appeal.
If she loses that means she is left with only 131 million with which to scrape by. She turns 60 years old this December and if we project her as good for another 25 years, she has to budget herself to spending a mere 5.25 million annually.
My concern wasn't really her ability to earn as an attorney, it was with her credibility when she claims that she did not understand these agreements at the time she signed them. The reason one hires an attorney before signing a contract is to gain a full understanding of rights and obligations contained in the agreement. It is the job of the attorney to root out concealed assets and recognize when the other side is being deceitful.
An attorney suing on the grounds that he or she was deceived or confused by a contract which that attorney signed, is like a doctor with emphysema suing a tobacco company and claiming that he or she was tricked into thinking that cigarettes were safe.
I understand your concerns. I just doubt she will be working anymore, if she actually is now anyway. Out of the job market I'd think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
