Jamie McCourt never indicated she wanted co-ownership of Dodgers, attorney testifies
At the heart of Jamie McCourt’s court challenge is her oft-stated contention that she never would have agreed to surrender her right to a share of the Dodgers. The ownership issue is spelled out in Exhibit A of a now-disputed agreement in which Frank McCourt’s separate property is identified.
Larry Silverstein, the Boston lawyer who drafted the agreement, forcefully denied Thursday that Jamie ever directed him to ensure that she had a share of the Dodgers.
“Did she ever instruct you to exclude the Dodgers from Exhibit A?” asked Victoria Cook, an attorney for Frank.
“Absolutely not,” Silverstein said.
He added: “She never indicated that she wanted ownership interest in the Dodgers or that she was willing to take on the [financial] risk.”
David Boies, an attorney for Jamie, has said Silverstein’s change in the language -- from a word excluding the Dodgers from Frank’s separate property to a word including the team therein -- was intentional, not the innocent mistake Silverstein says. Cook explored that issue further with Silverstein.
“Mr. Boies has implied that you and your firm favored Frank over Jamie,” Cook said. “Is that correct?”
“Absolutely not,” said Silverstein, his voice growing stronger and feistier. “No. 1, Jamie was the driving force in wanting the marital property agreement, and two, Jamie was heavily involved in advising Frank.”
Walking out of the courthouse after Silverstein’s three-day grilling, another attorney for Frank said Silverstein had held up well.
“Anyone who can withstand that kind of questioning by David Boies that long without dropping to his knees and confessing, ‘I did it!’ is not a fraudster or a liar, OK?” Steve Susman said. “It’s like putting someone through water torture.”
Told that Boies declared Thursday afternoon that the case was over, Victoria Cook smiled. “He’s conceding defeat?”
-- Carla Hall at Los Angeles County Superior Court