On First Day of McCourt Trial, It's All About Jamie

LOS ANGELES -- On the first day of Frank and Jamie McCourt's divorce trial, there were references to English poets, the Sorbonne and supermarket titan Ron Burkle. And underlying all the discussion of documents and depositions was one big question: Who is Jamie McCourt?

It's a topic that cuts to the heart of a case that will likely determine the future owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. A key issue in the trial is Jamie's role in the creation of a marital property agreement signed by the couple in 2004, shortly after they purchased the Dodgers from News Corp for about $420 million. The McCourts actually signed two versions of the MPA -- one which gave the Dodgers to Frank and the couple's homes to Jamie in the event of a divorce, and another that made the team community property.

As they did in documents leading up to the trial, Jamie's lawyers argued Monday that the contrasting MPAs should force Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon to invalidate the agreement. Frank's side, meanwhile, asserted that the discrepancy was due to an assembly error -- and that Jamie was the one who insisted on putting the Dodgers and the couple's other businesses in Frank's name.

In a packed second-floor court room, lawyers for the estranged spouses laid out starkly contrasting profiles of Jamie, a 55-year-old Baltimore native who was the Dodgers' chief executive before being fired by Frank late last year.

According to her legal team, she was victimized by a mistake-plagued and fraudulent document switch, orchestrated by Frank and one of his attorneys, that resulted in her signing two versions of the marital property agreement, one of which gave away her ownership stake in the Dodgers. "How can you possibly choose one of these agreements?" asked veteran Los Angeles divorce attorney Dennis Wasser, who delivered Jamie's opening argument. He then quoted Sir Walter Scott in describing Frank's alleged scheme: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

That narrative was countered by Stephen Susman, one of six attorneys representing Frank on Monday. (Jamie had five.) In his opening salvo, Susman -- a Houston trial specialist who wore a blue pinstriped suit and cowboy boots to court -- presented Jamie as a savvy, money-grubbing operator who was the driving force behind the agreement and knew exactly what she was signing.

He assailed her side's claim that there was "a switcheroo" of the documents, citing Jamie's long-standing insistence that the couple put their business interests in Frank's name and their personal holdings -- such as homes and stocks -- in her name to protect the assets from creditors. Noting her degrees from Georgetown, MIT business school and experience as a divorce attorney, Susman said Jamie is attempting "to be the first such highly educated family attorney to claim she didn't understand her own post-nuptial agreement."

On Monday morning, Frank arrived in the courtroom first, flanked by Dodger executive Howard Sunkin and a phalanx of lawyers. Jamie, wearing a flattering white dress, came in shortly after 8:30 AM, escorted by attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore in his Supreme Court case against George Bush over the 2000 presidential election. Her parents were seated in the front row, an ironic turn-of-history since they did not attend the couple's wedding in 1979. (Jamie's parents, who are Jewish, objected to her marrying Frank, the scion of a wealthy Catholic family from Boston.)

The case has clouded the future of the Dodgers, who've been dogged by questions about the club's leadership and finances since the McCourts filed for divorce late last year. Even if Frank wins the trial and retains control of the team, it's not clear he has the resources to operate the team and pay Jamie spousal support. To foot the massive legal bill incurred by the divorce -- a tab that's expected to total nearly $19 million in combined lawyer fees -- Frank has already had to ask his brother and business associates for about $1.5 million in loans, according to court documents.

Based on court documents and Monday's arguments, it's clear that Frank and Jamie had very different appetites for risk when it came to business. Frank's career as a real estate developer was predicated on "borrowed money" and high-risk, high-reward ventures, according to Susman. It was a lifestyle that both sides agree made Jamie uncomfortable, particularly after the couple teetered on bankruptcy and engaged in near-constant litigation during the '80s, when they successfully gained ownership over a valuable 24-acre parcel in South Boston.

To allay Jamie's fears over creditors seizing their assets, the couple historically put their residences and stock portfolios in her name, while Frank assumed all the risk over their businesses. There was never any ambiguity about who owned what -- and that Jamie made it clear numerous times over the years that she wanted "no part" of Frank's business ventures, Susman argued.

Jamie opposed the purchase of the Dodgers, according to Susman, because the team was losing nearly $75 million a year and the purchase was financed almost entirely with massive loans from Bank of America and News Corp, which owned the club at the time. "Jamie wanted total and complete immunity from the downside of risk," Susman argued. "But when you don't share in the risk, you don't share in the upside." Frank's side, he added, will call six witnesses who will testify that Jamie never wanted any of the family's businesses -- including the Dodgers -- put in her name.

Jamie's lawyers, not surprisingly, say that the Dodgers were the "love of her life," according to Wasser. She "never would have traded the Dodgers" for real estate properties," he said after court. "Unfortunately I don't see a resolution happening quickly -- or even after this trial."

If Judge Gordon rules the team is community property, he could order the team to be sold to raise funds for a settlement. Jamie's lawyers have said in the past that she has assembled a group of wealthy L.A. executives who are interested in buying out Frank, but no potential investors have ever been identified.

FanHouse's Jon Weinbach analyzes the first day of the McCourt trial. Watch below: