Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Jamie McCourt testifies Dodgers purchase not risky

Jamie McCourt testified Monday she did not consider the purchase of the Dodgers a particularly risky venture because the team could be sold if its financial losses could not be reversed.

"We felt confident we would have positive cash flow in two or three years," she said. "If something did not turn out exactly right, we could always sell. Historically, teams don't lose money when they sell."

Her statements were made Monday in her divorce trial from Frank McCourt. At the center of the dispute is ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

She said she "frequently" discussed that possibility before she and Frank McCourt acquired the Dodgers in 2004 in a highly leveraged purchase.

Frank McCourt has testified Jamie McCourt asked for an agreement to protect the couple's homes from any possible Dodgers financial losses by putting them in her name and the team in his.

The lawyer for Frank McCourt grilled her on her contention that the court should not uphold the agreement that Frank McCourt says provides him with sole ownership of the Dodgers.

Frank McCourt's attorney, Steve Susman, recited Jamie McCourt's credentials as a practicing lawyer before asking her: "As a lawyer, do you believe people should be bound by what they sign?"

She replied: "I believe it as a lawyer and as a normal person."

Under questioning from her attorney, David Boies, Jamie McCourt testified she had not read the agreement because she understood it would simply codify under California law what the McCourts practiced in Massachusetts -- keeping the homes in her name to protect them from creditors.

"I trusted Larry," she said, referring to Larry Silverstein, the lawyer who drafted the agreement. "I trusted Frank. I trusted Larry was doing what we asked him to do."

-- Bill Shaikin at L.A. Superior Court downtown

Comments () | Archives (15)

I hope she gets a share and demands that they sell as soon as possible. They have become very unwelcome in Los Angeles as they obviously bought the Dodgers as a cash cow. We need committed Los Angeles ownership dedicated to winning for the fans.

A lawyer (Jamie McCourt) just "trusted Larry" another lawyer? I don't think so. I wonder what her area of practice was?

I can just see her business cards: "Jamie McCourt - Gullible Attorney For Hire" and her slogan was "You don't have to read that - it's all standard..."

She is excessively greedy. She needs to sell some of her, what, 12 or 13 houses? Does she really need 13 mansions? Really?

Sell, maybe, 10 of them, live off the proceeds, cut your monthly expenses, etc.

I am not envious of people like this, because they have a sickness. But when I read about it, I view that sickness with utter contempt.

ok, so you as an attorney you agree that you signed a document that says you do not own the Doidgers......

oh and btw..is this the same driver you have been sleeping with

what a circus.. but no one has answered the question do the houses remain in her name or are they also joint propoerty? if not, she should stick it

The houses became joint property, so why not the Dodgers?

Boycott the Dodgers until we get a new owner!

It sounds like Mr. Silverstein will be calling his insurance man to see what his liability cap is on the malpractice policy. Love it, lawyers suing lawyers.

How many white dresses does jamie have? Is she trying to appear "angelic and pure?

Are these "Boston" pirates going to sell the dodgers and fade away into the night?
Who would ever hire her as a lawyer? If there is a baseball God, then both of them will get crushed by 20,000 baseballs.

I am not a Dodger fan, but the best thing for this team is to be bring back the O'Malleys. Whatever is happening now is not good, not only to the organization, but not good for Los Angeles. Where is Tommy Lasorda when we need is opinionated personality?

The comments are all over the place and really not focused on one aspect of the divorce. But I want to add that the McCourts met while both freashmen at college and married after they graduated. So she was Vice President of the McCourt Co.
Frank is going to have a hard time not giving her half of everything. I would think that there would be enough money and assets that they could split and still be wealth. I don't think it is about greed, but people try to make divorce punitive, even when they are not wealthy. I'm sure there are some people men and women that knows what I'm talking about.


just another greedy woman out to get a buck. if she gets the dodgers, no one will play for her let alone watch them. bye bye dodgers if that happens


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: