Here's What to Watch for as McCourt Divorce Trial Kicks Off

In a year of landmark sports litigation, the divorce trial between Frank and Jamie McCourt, which begins Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, may end up being the most-discussed case of all. It is the ultimate Hollywood he said, she said, a saga that includes Malibu mansions, millionaire ballplayers, conflicting legal documents and some of the country's most accomplished -- and most expensive -- attorneys.

While it will not have any impact on, say, league labor agreements or baseball's anti-trust exemption, the trial will determine the future owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, one of America's iconic sports franchises, and will likely shed new light on the financial realities of operating a Major League Baseball club.

The divorce has been a stormy cloud over the franchise since last October, when the couple announced their separation just before Game 1 of the National League Championship Series, when the Dodgers took on the Philadelphia Phillies. Over the past 10 months, a stream of unflattering details about the McCourts in court documents and hearings has raised questions about their stewardship of the club, and attracted interest from outlets ranging from TMZ to National Public Radio to Dodgerdivorce.com, a site created by a University of Minnesota law student who grew up in L.A.

The most controversial revelations in the case involve the couple's practice of using the Dodgers as collateral to obtain massive loans that funded their lavish lifestyle, even as they imposed strict limitations on the team's payroll and dramatically raised prices on tickets, parking and concessions.

Since taking over the Dodgers from the Fox Broadcasting Company in 2004, the couple purchased several luxurious homes, including two mansions adjacent to the Playboy Mansion and a pair of beach-side estates overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Frank and Jamie also paid two of their adult sons large annual salaries -- $400,000 and $200,000, respectively -- for duties that have never been specified.

At the same time, the club has increasingly pinched pennies when it comes to acquiring talent. In 2008 and 2009, the club spent less money signing draft picks than any other team in Major League Baseball. Before the 2010 season, the Dodgers made no effort to re-sign starters Randy Wolf and Jon Garland, despite the club's shortage of pitching. The team has been on the losing end when trying to acquire stars such as Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia, and in 2008, the Dodgers added Manny Ramirez and Casey Blake only after both players' former teams agreed to pay most of their salaries. This past weekend, the Dodgers moved closer to trading Ramirez to the Chicago White Sox, largely to avoid paying the remaining salary on his contract.

The team has enjoyed considerable on-field success under the McCourts, reaching the playoffs in four of their six seasons of ownership. But off the field, the couple has employed a series of executives and image consultants, further raising the ire and distrust of fans and local media. One PR specialist, who was ostensibly hired to improve the Dodgers' marketing efforts, spent months creating an "action plan" for Jamie McCourt that envisioned her running for President of the United States, according to court documents.

The divorce trial is scheduled to take place over 11 days, beginning with four days this week, then picking up later this month. The case is expected to cost nearly $20 million in legal bills, making it the most expensive in California's history, according to several Los Angeles family law attorneys. According to court documents, Frank has already asked his brother and a business associate for loans to pay for the massive legal bills, leading to more doubts about his ability to afford operating the Dodgers even if he retains ownership of team in the divorce case.

There's still a strong possibility that the Frank and Jamie will settle before the trial is completed, but here are three key issues to keep an eye on as the courtroom drama begins this week:

1. Whose Marital Property Agreement?

The key issue in the trial is the definition of the Marital Property Agreement the couple signed in 2004, just after purchasing the Dodgers. Frank has long claimed that the agreement placed the couple's multiple residences in Jamie's name and gave him control of the franchise if the couple divorced.

The McCourts actually signed two versions of the MPA -- one to comply with Massachusetts law, and another for California, and both were signed in late March and early April of 2004. Both sides agree that the MPA was executed to shield the family's properties from litigation or creditors -- but Jamie has insisted that she never agreed to give up any ownership stake in the Dodgers.

Jamie's lawyers believe the agreement should be invalidated because of a key discrepancy between the original copies of the two MPAs, which were both signed by Jamie on March 31, 2004. The Massachusetts version included a section giving Frank sole ownership of the team in the event of the divorce, while the original California version did not. According to Jamie's lawyers, however, the clause giving Frank rights to the team was never in any earlier draft of the MPA, and was only added a day before the documents were signed.

Moreover, Jamie's attorneys cite forensic analysis of the MPAs and word processing records to show that the California version was later doctored to include the section giving Frank ownership of the Dodgers in the event of a divorce. The changes were made without Jamie's knowledge and were only discovered in the last month, when both Frank and Lawrence Silverstein, the couple's long-time attorney, admitted that there were, in fact, two versions of the document.

The first witness that Jamie's lawyers will call to the stand is Leah Bishop, the couple's estate attorney. In 2008, Bishop informed them that the club would become Frank's sole property in a divorce. Frank's response was, "That's not what it was supposed to be," according to Jamie's attorneys, lending credence to her claim that the McCourts never intended to split control of the Dodgers.

Jamie's lawyers also contend that she never actually saw the "final" California version until the divorce proceedings began last year, and was told previously by Silverstein that the California version was kept in his law firm's vault in Boston. In recent depositions, Frank and Silverstein attributed the discrepancy to "typographical" and "clerical" errors.

Over the past 10 months, a stream of unflattering details about the McCourts in court documents and hearings has raised questions about their stewardship of the (Dodgers). If Judge Scott Gordon sides with Jamie on this issue, the team would presumably become community property -- but since neither Frank nor Jamie appear to want to share the team, the couple would likely have to sell the Dodgers to create an equitable divorce settlement.

2. The Actual Value of the Dodgers

It's been a moving target in the case, with Jamie's attorneys asserting the team is potentially worth nearly $2 billion, while Frank 's valuation is much lower, between $800 and $900 million. The wildly different valuations are based on the purported value of a regional sports network that the Dodgers have explored launching in 2013, after their current TV contract with Fox expires. It's not clear who would fund such a network -- or if it's even realistic given the presence of two Fox-owned RSNs in LA already -- but the details of the rumored network could likely be discussed in the trial. A firm valuation of the Dodgers could also lead to more urgent settlement talks, since both sides will have an agreed-upon figure for negotiations.

3. The Lawyers

In an interesting twist, both sides have hired star trial lawyers who are not family law experts. Jamie's team will likely be fronted in court by David Boies, who represented Al Gore in his Supreme Court case against George Bush over the 2000 presidential election. Frank's case, meanwhile, will be argued by Stephen Susman, a Houston trial specialist who successfully defended Little Caesars and Clear Channel Communications in landmark anti-trust cases. While both McCourts also have small armies of family law lawyers working on their behalf, it should be entertaining to see Boies and Susman -- who have worked together on other cases -- square off against each other, both in the court and with the media.

---

It was a weekend in Major League Baseball that saw a replay-aided walk-off homer, a new NL MVP candidate emerge and the end of "Mannywood." FanHouse TV's Steve Phillips tells us what he learned. Click to watch: