The central issue in the divorce trial of Dodgers owners Frank and Jamie McCourt seems to rest on the use of one word in their marital property agreement. A lawyer admitted on the stand that he changed wording in a contract between the couple that is now at the heart of their tussle over who really owns the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Both Mr. and Mrs. McCourt have asserted ownership rights. Mrs. McCourt said she was co-owner under California’s community property laws. Mr. McCourt claimed they signed a marital property agreement in 2004 that named him sole owner.

Both were able to pull out their copies of the agreement to prove their individual cases. It turns out they were correct. Two versions of the agreement exist, with one having been reviewed at the time both parties signed. Another one, with a change made in one of the schedules, was created after that, with only one word change. The original schedule was replaced after the fact. On that one word, hangs the fate of the Dodgers.

The word at issue is “exclusive”, as in whether the Mr. McCourt’s sole portion of the couples’ property and assets excluded the Dodgers, making the team joint property.

The change to the word “inclusive” was made by the couple’s lawyer at the time, one Larry Silverstein, a Massachusetts lawyer. The McCourts resided in that state prior to their purchase of the Dodgers and their relocation to California and Silverstein represented both Jamie and Frank during the drafting of the document.

 The intent of the agreement, according to Silverstein, was to reflect the couple’s wish to segregate their personal real estate holdings from their other assets, with Mrs. McCourt getting the multiple residences and Mr. McCourt getting the businesses, including debt as well as equity.

There has been testimony from Mr. McCourt and Mr. Silverstein about Mrs. McCourt’s concern about the potential for business creditors to put a lien or seize their personal residences if Mr. McCourt overextended himself in his businesses. Silverstein testified that there was an error in the drafting that changed the meaning of their intentions, that hadn’t been caught by anyone prior to final signing and notarizing. The problem seems to stem from the attorney’s failure to alert the couple to what he called a mere drafting error and an innocent mistake.

The mistake is now being viewed by Mrs. McCourt and her attorneys as intentional on the part of Silverstein. He is being browbeaten on the witness stand with allegations of unethical conduct and potential malpractice. David Boies, attorney for Jamie McCourt has seized on this issue to blow a hole in what Frank McCourt thought was going to be a slam dunk for him to walk away with the Dodgers as his little fiefdom.

The team’s fate lies in the balance between these two accounts. If the team is community property, it is probable that neither one will have the liquidity or the credit to buy the other out. It is clear they can’t abide to be in the same room with each other, never mind run a business together. That would force a sale to a third party with the couple splitting the proceeds.

What do Dodger fans want? They are sick of the McCourts and more fans than not want a clean slate with a new owner. Whether that will happen might just hang in the balance between two versions of a contract.

Used with permission of the author.

Paula Duffy is a national sports columnist for Examiner.com and the Huffington Post and regularly comments on sports/legal matters for radio affiliates of ESPN and Fox Sports. She founded the sports information site, Incidental Contact, is the author of a line of audio books designed for sports novices and in her spare time practices law in Los Angeles. 

Copyright ©2010 Sports Climax, LLC