Lawyer says he switched postnuptial agreement to give Frank McCourt sole ownership of Dodgers

Lawyer says he switched McCourt postnup agreement

LOS ANGELES — An attorney testified Tuesday at the divorce trial of Jamie and Frank McCourt that he drafted six copies of a postnuptial marital agreement out of an abundance of caution, but his decision created a major blunder that now leaves the Los Angeles Dodgers’ ownership in question.

Larry Silverstein of Boston said he made a “drafting error” when he prepared an addendum to the agreement that excluded the Dodgers, the stadium and the surrounding land, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, from Frank McCourt’s separate property.

Worse off, when Silverstein gave the documents to the McCourts to sign in March 2004, three had the team as Frank McCourt’s separate property, and three others didn’t. Jamie McCourt ended up signing all six; Frank McCourt signed three at the couple’s Massachusetts home and the remaining three a couple of weeks later while he was in California.

The agreement is at the center of the dispute between the McCourts and could decide who owns the Dodgers. Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon must decide whether the pact is valid. He also could order the sale of the team.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press has learned that lawyers for the McCourts are planning to go into mediation as soon as Friday on the ownership question.

A person familiar with the case who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about settlement discussions told the AP late Tuesday that the two sides would meet in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on Friday.

Last month, Frank McCourt’s attorney Steve Susman said his client had offered Jamie McCourt an extremely generous amount of money but refused to disclose the figure.

The mediation talks were first reported by Yahoo! Sports.

Silverstein said the original plan was to have three copies of the agreement, one each for Frank and Jamie McCourt and one for himself. However, he decided at the last minute before the couple signed them to produce three other documents.

“I was simply trying to have a set of protective documents,” he said.

Silverstein said he doesn’t recall switching the versions Frank McCourt signed in California that excluded the Dodgers with wording that did include the team, but believes he did so shortly thereafter after he looked at company records.

It wasn’t until a few months ago, after forensic analysts were hired by both sides to examine the six copies, that it was determined Silverstein made the changes.

Jamie McCourt’s attorney David Boies asked Silverstein if he thought it was OK to switch a legal document after it had been signed and notarized.

“In certain circumstances, yes,” Silverstein replied.

Boies asked his fellow litigator, who has practiced law for more than 30 years, if he ever recalled a situation where an attorney had removed part of a legal document and replaced it with something else without the written permission of both parties.

“Express permission or implicit permission, no,” Silverstein added.

Silverstein said he didn’t tell Jamie McCourt about replacing the addendum that gave her husband the Dodgers. On Monday, she testified she never read the agreement, nor did anyone tell her, namely Silverstein, that she would be giving up her purported ownership stake in the team.

Silverstein maintained that his intent was always to have the Dodgers listed as Frank McCourt’s separate property. But Boies pointed out that Silverstein misrepresented himself when he told Jamie McCourt that all six copies of the agreement were identical before she signed them.

“It was false wasn’t it?” Boies asked as his voice boomed in the courtroom.

“It turned out to be false,” Silverstein said.

In afternoon testimony, another attorney who worked at the same firm as Silverstein said he was directed by Jamie McCourt to come up with the marital agreement during a meeting at Dodger Stadium shortly after the team was bought in February 2004.

Reynolds Cafferata said in conversations he had with Jamie McCourt, she asked him questions about California’s community property provision and told him it was a family practice to keep assets separate.

“She said ‘We do things differently. I own the houses, Frank owns the businesses,’ ” said Cafferata, who added Jamie McCourt wanted a draft agreement created quickly. “She was interested in having this done immediately.”

Silverstein did not finish his testimony because of health issues and was expected to take the stand Wednesday.