Jamie McCourt loses appeal, will remain $900 million short of a 50-50 split
Didn’t Vladimir Shpunt warn her about this?
Our old friend Jamie McCourt has lost her appeal to overturn her divorce agreement with ex-hubby Frank McCourt. Seems she’ll have to make do with that $131-million settlement and all that real estate she originally settled for.
Of course, millions don’t go as far as they once did. Jamie already dropped $11.25 million on a Napa vineyard. And now the judge has ordered her to pay Frank $1.9 million in legal fees for trying to overturn the divorce agreement. That can cut into a girl’s efforts to invest in exciting start-ups.
You can appreciate that Jamie felt she ultimately had failed to get a square deal in her divorce agreement, what with Frank going on to sell the Dodgers for a record $2.15 billion. This is California after all, a community property state.
Alas, a signed agreement is a signed agreement. Even if it does leave you over $900 million shy of a 50-50 split.
Jamie argued her ex had misled her about the value of the team and the television broadcast rights. The Tuesday ruling noted that Frank has surrendered over 220,000 pages of financial records during the divorce proceedings. And then of course, there is the little matter of her being the team’s ex-CEO.
Jamie agreed to the settlement back in 2011 while the Dodgers were still in bankruptcy.
“Jamie simply chose the security of a guaranteed $131 million payment, plus more than $50 million in real and personal property, over the uncertainty and risk presented by the valuation and sale of the Dodger assets,” the ruling stated.
Jamie had sought an additional $770 million, claiming Frank had lied about the value of their assets. A lower court judge didn’t buy it, and now a three-judge appeals panel has upheld the original ruling.
Times are tough all over. Unless, of course, you’re Frank McCourt.
Are you a true-blue fan?
Get our Dodgers Dugout newsletter for insights, news and much more.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.