McCourt pact is rejected

Frank McCourt lost a critical round in his effort to maintain control of the Dodgers on Tuesday, when a judge invalidated an agreement that would have provided him with sole control of the storied baseball team.

As Frank McCourt’s attorneys pledged to fight another round in court, Jamie McCourt’s attorneys proclaimed her a co-owner of the team and hinted that she might soon challenge her ex-husband to sell the Dodgers to her and other investors.

David Boies, an attorney for Jamie, said he hoped Frank would agree to a settlement.

“I think the only way he could do that is to sell the Dodgers, either to her or to somebody else,” Boies said.

In court papers, Frank valued the Dodgers at about $800 million; Boies estimates the value at about $1.1 billion, taking into account future broadcast rights and stadium land development.

Frank’s attorneys said Tuesday’s ruling conferred no ownership rights upon Jamie and would simply force Frank to use another legal means to establish the team as his sole property.

“What this means for Frank is a bit more time at the courthouse,” attorney Victoria Cook said. Frank’s lawyers contend that they can prove by virtue of the fact that the Dodgers are held in his name, he is the sole owner.

However, two family law attorneys consulted by The Times said Frank had played his strongest legal card and lost.

“To use a baseball analogy, this is like there are two out in the bottom of the ninth,” said Lisa Helfend Meyer, a Century City family law specialist. “He really has no leverage.”

Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig declined to comment. The Times reported in September that the possibility of years of legal battles between the McCourts had prompted him to consider intervening on behalf of the Dodgers, but it is uncertain what options he might contemplate.

The ruling is not expected to have an immediate impact on the day-to-day operations of the team. However, the team could be in legal limbo for several more years.

Both Frank and Jamie on Tuesday spoke only through their attorneys.

Sorrell Trope, an attorney for Frank, said his client has not decided whether to appeal Tuesday’s ruling. Instead, Trope said Frank would move for a second trial in which he would claim the Dodgers are his sole property because he bought them using a company formed before marriage.

After more than a year of divorce proceedings featuring such revelations as the McCourts’ side-by-side homes in Holmby Hills and Malibu, the Dodgers charging themselves millions in rent each year and the payments to Russian physicist Vladimir Shpunt for channeling positive thoughts to the team, the court ruling Tuesday was rooted in a fundamental legal factor.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon threw out the marital property agreement -- known by its initials as an MPA -- because it did not conform to California law.

“The court finds that the MPA was not a valid transmutation,” Gordon wrote, citing a legal term for transferring what would otherwise be community property into the sole property of one spouse or another.

That could be disturbing news at Bingham McCutchen, the Boston-based law firm that employed Larry Silverstein, the attorney who drafted the agreement.

Gordon wrote that Silverstein’s admission that he switched a page of the agreement after the McCourts had signed it and without notifying them “is troubling and has introduced great challenges in this case. The evidence does not produce a reasonable explanation for Silverstein’s exchange of such critical documents without notification or consultation of the parties.”

Silverstein testified that his document switch merely corrected an error, replacing a page that specified the Dodgers were not Frank’s sole property with one that specified they were, in accordance with what he said was the intent of the McCourts.

However, given such a profound difference between the two documents, Gordon wrote: “The court finds that there has not been sufficient evidence presented to indicate which of the two materially inconsistent MPA’s represented the actual intent of the parties.”

Legal experts have said Frank could file a malpractice claim against Bingham if he can show he lost ownership of the Dodgers because of Silverstein’s mistakes.

In a statement, Bingham spokeswoman Claire Papanastasiou said Silverstein was not at fault and said the ruling had turned “upon a very technical analysis of complex issues of Massachusetts and California marital property law.”

Even as her attorneys declared Jamie McCourt’s rights to a half-share of ownership, Boies said Jamie has no plans to involve herself in the daily operation of the club. She has worked with investment banker Joe Ravitch for more than a year to line up potential investors.

“We’d like to work this out so it has the least disruption possible for the Dodgers,” he said. “Obviously, she wants to make sure that Frank doesn’t do something that prejudices her rights or prejudices the value of the Dodgers.”

Even with the ownership in question, the Dodgers have had a surprisingly active off-season, spending almost $77 million to sign seven free agents.

They reached an agreement with Vicente Padilla on a one-year, $2-million contract on Tuesday. He is the fourth pitcher to sign with the team since the season ended, joining Ted Lilly (three years, $33 million), Hiroki Kuroda (one year, $12 million) and Jon Garland (one year, $5 million).

The Dodgers’ opening-day payroll is projected to be close to $110 million. That marks an increase from last season, when the payroll peaked at around $95 million

Cook said Frank’s personal legal issues would not detract from his focus on putting a championship team on the field.

“He’s going through a divorce,” she said. “Of course, it’s a distraction at a personal level. It’s not a distraction at a business level.”

Cook said a second trial -- to determine whether the Dodgers are community property -- could be completed in one day.

“It would be great to get this resolved by the time the season opens,” Cook said.

Boies scoffed at that time frame.

“If we start going through asset by asset and trying to reconstruct history, that will take years,” Boies said.

Dennis Wasser, another attorney for Jamie, said he hoped the ruling would lead to a settlement that would benefit the Dodgers and the community.

“We hope that it is possible to resolve this matter in a reasonable manner,” he said. “The Dodgers are a valuable civic asset, and Los Angeles fans deserve stability in the front office and a winning team on the field.

Frank accepted a mediator’s settlement offer late last month, saying it was in the best interests of his family, the Dodgers and the community. Jamie rejected that deal, the terms of which were not made public.

Asked Tuesday whether Frank considered an extended legal fight in the best interests of the Dodgers and community, Cook said, “The community is served by having Frank quickly found to be the sole owner of the Dodgers.”

bill.shaikin@latimes.com

carla.hall@latimes.com

Staff writer Dylan Hernandez contributed to this report from Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

--

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

What’s next

Judge Scott Gordon ruled Tuesday that Frank and Jamie McCourt’s marital property agreement was not valid. Now the fight for the team will continue. Here’s a look at what might be next:

For Frank McCourt:

He could appeal Tuesday’s ruling but has already said he will go back to court for a second trial, arguing that he is sole owner because he bought the Dodgers using a company he formed before marriage and that title to the team has always been in his name alone. That next round in court, his attorneys say, could take a matter of months.

For Jamie McCourt:

She wants to renew settlement talks. In the absence of a settlement that would give her half of what she considers the value of the McCourt assets, she could announce that she has assembled an investment partnership to buy out Frank’s stake in the Dodgers. Her attorneys say Frank’s announced plans of going back to court could take years, not, as he claims, months.

For the Dodgers:

There is no reason to expect immediate changes, but eventually the team could be sold if Frank’s attempts to gain sole ownership fail and the sides are unable to reach a settlement. Already this off-season the team has invested $77 million in seven free agents, and the 2011 payroll is already at about $110 million -- about $15 million more than at the peak of last season.

--Bill Shaikin