Lawyer argues in divorce trial that postnuptial agreement involving Dodgers should be tossed

Lawyer: Postnup involving Dodgers should be tossed

LOS ANGELES — A marital agreement that could determine ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers should be thrown out because one version gave the team to Frank McCourt and another called for joint ownership with his wife Jamie McCourt, her lawyer told a judge Wednesday.

In his closing argument at the divorce trial, attorney Dennis Wasser gave a Power Point presentation that included two sections entitled “Smoking Guns” and “Hurdles Frank Cannot Overcome.”

In both, Wasser directed his ire at Larry Silverstein, the couple’s attorney who helped draft the postnuptual agreement and supposedly advised them about its effects.

Wasser suggested fraud was committed when one version was replaced with the other, but he doesn’t believe Frank McCourt instructed Silverstein to do it.

“My theory is he was acting as (Frank McCourt’s) agent,” Wasser said of Silverstein. “He wasn’t doing it for himself. He wasn’t doing the switch for Jamie.”

Silverstein testified during the trial that he believed he swapped a key portion of the agreement but failed to tell the couple.

Wasser believes Frank McCourt and Silverstein tailored their testimony when forensic analysts discovered the switch this summer after an examination of the documents.

“The story that Frank and Mr. Silverstein are giving is reverse engineering,” Wasser said. “The story is scripted.”

Frank McCourt denied during testimony that he knew about the switch. His attorney was expected to present his closing argument later in the day.

McCourt’s legal team has said Jamie McCourt was the driving force behind the marital agreement and wanted no part in the risk associated with the $430 million purchase of the Dodgers that was mostly funded by short-term loans to be repaid within two years.

Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon has 90 days to decide whether Frank McCourt is the sole owner of the team, its stadium and surrounding land worth hundreds of millions of dollars, or if the 10-page document should be thrown out and the couple’s assets divided as community property.

He also could order the sale of the team.

“When parties sign two versions of a contract which contain directly contradictory material terms, there is no meeting of the minds and hence, no contract at all,” Wasser said.

Wasser also told the judge his client had been ridiculed for admitting she didn’t read the agreement before signing it in March 2004, but he pointed out her estranged husband had done the same thing a month later when he signed three copies in California.

Wasser reiterated Jamie McCourt wouldn’t have signed away her purported stake in the Dodgers.

“You know and everyone in this courtroom knows, and even Frank knows, she would never give up the Dodgers,” Wasser said to Gordon. “It doesn’t make sense.”

The McCourts, armed with a cadre of high-powered lawyers, have met at the negotiating table several times to try to settle the dispute. The most recent session came Friday with no resolution.

They were expected to resume mediation on Oct. 9, according to court spokesman Allan Parachini.

Jamie McCourt was fired in October as the team’s CEO, a job that paid her a $2 million annual salary. She filed for divorce the same month, citing irreconcilable differences. The couple have been married since 1979 and have four grown sons.

She lost her initial bid to be reinstated as the team’s chief executive but was awarded $225,000 a month in temporary spousal support along with having her estranged husband pay more than $400,000 a month for the couple’s six homes and a condominium.

She had been seeking nearly $1 million a month; Frank McCourt had offered her $150,000.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects headlines to say postnuptial sted of prenuptial agreement. Updates with details, quotes. Developing from ongoing court proceedings. This story is part of AP’s general news, financial and sports services.)