Jamie McCourt testifies she did not understand disputed agreement on Dodgers ownership

Jamie McCourt stuck to her story all afternoon Monday. Under cross-examination, she repeated that she believed the disputed agreement she and her estranged husband signed in 2004 permitted Frank McCourt to present himself as the sole owner of the Dodgers but did not mean the baseball team would be his in the event of divorce.

“That is as fictional as Harry Potter,” said Steve Susman, one of Frank McCourt's attorneys, outside court.

Under fierce questioning, Jamie did not back down from her assertions that she neither read nor understood the agreement and that no one had properly explained it to her.

Susman, who emphasized that Jame once practiced law, walked her through the agreement and the cover letter that accompanied it, with Jamie deflecting numerous questions by saying she did not understand the language or could not recall discussing it.

At one point, Susman read a statement from the cover letter, sent by the attorney who drafted the agreement, Larry Silverstein.

“As we have discussed, California is a community property state,” Silverstein wrote.

Asked Susman: “Did he have that discussion with you, or is he just hallucinating?”

Replied Jamie: “I can’t speak for him, or if he was hallucinating.”

Susman spent several hours questioning Jamie. When her lawyer, David Boies, returned to his questioning, Boies asked whether Silverstein and his firm had spent as much time explaining the agreement to her as Susman had spent reviewing it with her on the witness stand.

“No,” she said.

Jamie also shed more light into the dynamics of the McCourt marriage by discussing a handwritten note from March 31, 2004, the day the agreement was signed. It turns out Jamie had an acronym for her husband’s apparent frequent yelling.

The McCourts flew from Massachusetts to California that day, and Jamie wrote in her note that “Frank freaked out because we had to land in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for no apparent reason. That means YAM.”

And what did YAM mean?

“That means he is yelling at me,” she said.

-- Bill Shaikin at Los Angeles County Superior Court

Comments

[Reality Chick]

Right, and the purse with the cocaine in it didn't really belong to Paris Hilton.

[eric m]

Sell the team already you jerks.

[MaryKatherine Ryan]

The McCourts are the worst thing to happen to our beloved Dodgers. Peter O'Malley is absolutely right - the Dodgers need to be sold to an owner who will serve the city and not themselves.

The McCourt ownership disgusts me and I have yet to support one game simply because I refuse to line their pockets. Go ANGELS!!!!!

[Margaret Nevins]

These two losers need to"get the hell out of Dodge".

[Broapsley]

A sad tale of two greedy, self-absorbed people who care little for the sport and only about their own grandiose selves. They are making a mockery of the judicial system with their own petty personal issues. Shame on both of the McCourts. I can only imagine what nut cases they spawned.

Jamie and Frank: Sell the Dodgers. Deal with your own ridiculous personal issues outside the public arena.

[Jerry Whitson]

Jamie's story is ridiculous and demeaning to herself (if possible, that is.) I mean, she's a lawyer and sophisticated, tough adult, but tries to present herself as a damsel who didn't read an agreement she signed, and didn't understand it anyway, and blames others for not 'splaining' it to her. Sheesh.

[TheBigPicture]

Earth to People...Sporting events are entertainment...entertainment is business...Just a business...

She's an attorney, she knew or should have know what was in the pre-nup...She loses...

[Sherri]

Margaret Nevens...or do you mean 'DodgerTOWN?"

[mccotter]

she not stupid she knew what was going on and what she sign if not that to bad thw law is on his side. i don't think the players or any body would trust her