Frank and Jamie Mccourt: a Cautionary Tale of Divorce Gone Wrong
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LOS ANGELES www.dailyjournal.com WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Frank and Jamie McCourt: a cautionary tale of divorce gone wrong By Jeffery S. Jacobson, Julie A. Milligan and unpaid income taxes — and massive attorney fees. Cozette C. Vergari It did not have to be this way. Frank and Jamie could have found a way of retaining the team, both could have any Angelenos breathed a sigh of relief with last come out with more money, they could have created a Mweek’s announcement that Frank McCourt reached wonderful legacy for their sons, and their public images a settlement with Major League Baseball and has agreed could have remained intact. to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers. Combined with the prior There is another approach to divorce that would have settlement with his estranged wife Jamie McCourt, it protected the McCourts’ privacy and provided an oppor- appears that the McCourts’ epic battle in family court, tunity for a more civilized negotiation with one another. bankruptcy court and the court of public opinion is finally There is an option far different from the traditional public coming to an end. forum of the court room, an option where nothing needs It has been frequently cited that Frank and Jamie had to be public, other than the fact that a case for divorce the most expensive divorce in California history. They has been opened and a final judgment entered. employed some of the best and brightest attorneys, ac- The state of California has recognized, and eventually countants and public relations professionals that money codified in 2007, the process of collaborative divorce. could buy. According to court filings, during the past The spouses choosing this path each have a trained col- two years, they spent in excess of $20 million dollars on laborative family law attorney, engaged to advise and lead attorney fees and costs. Associated Press them through the divorce process. One of the very first On that fateful October day prior to game one of the Frank McCourt, right, and Jamie, at a news conference steps involves the parties and attorneys entering into a 2009 National League Championship series, it was an- in Los Angeles in 2004, display team jerseys after an- stipulation, agreeing to devote all of their efforts toward a nounced that Frank and Jamie would be getting divorced. nouncing that Major League Baseball had approved his negotiated settlement in an efficient, cooperative manner Immediately, both of them had public relations experts purchase of the Dodgers. and providing that, while engaged in the collaborative spinning their positions. They expressed their interests process, no party or attorney signing the stipulation will publicly: Both Frank and Jamie wanted to keep the humiliating her. Jamie fired back with a massive court file any document requesting court intervention. This team in their family and create a legacy for their four filing, detailing their opulent lifestyle and discussing process also protects the parties’ privacy. sons; Frank wanted to manage the Dodgers entities; the inner financial workings of the Dodgers. Ironically, Additionally, the collaborative process affords parties Jamie wanted to be the public face of the Dodgers; while hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the the opportunity to work with mental health profession- both wanted to increase the value of the Dodgers and McCourts to shield themselves from the general public, als, trained in collaborative divorce, to identify interests maintain personal wealth; and both wanted to maintain their private lives became an open book for all to read and address the emotional challenges each is facing. their public images. in the court files. Though not always easy, the parties are assisted by However, none of their subsequent decisions or actions Within a year, they went to trial on the bifurcated issue their own professional “coach” in working through the reflected these interests. Instead of working together in of the validity of a postmarital agreement. After millions struggles of breaking up a marriage and a family. The collaboration to address these interests, they treated the of dollars were spent in litigation, the result was based coaches work together as a team with the attorneys and process as if it were a sporting event, each of them intent largely upon a clerical mistake, which made it impossible financial professionals to assist both parties in easing upon winning. Beyond winning, it appears the focus was to determine what the McCourts had actually agreed to. the emotional burdens of such a break-up and having an even defeating the other, without any care for the dam- Perhaps the most memorable part of this litigation was interest-based negotiation. age that might result to either or both. The need to win Judge Scott Gordon’s comment in his ruling that both The McCourts are no different from any family getting justified the means. Frank and Jamie had credibility issues with regard to the divorced. Like any husband and wife, they had to deal The highest level of collaboration involves an emphasis disputed postmarital agreement. (and likely will deal for years to come) with the emotion on one’s interests, while, at the same time acknowledging When the smoke clears, both Frank and Jamie will still of their 30 year marriage ending. They both likely have the interests of the other spouse. Instead, Frank and Jamie be wealthy, at least by the standards of ordinary people. feelings of anger, sadness and fear. Regardless of the size engaged in a positional battle. Jamie was awarded homes in Malibu, Holmby Hills and of an estate, effective processes for resolving family law As a result, they lost control of the situation, sacrificing Vail. Frank was awarded two homes in Boston. Both matters take these feelings, combined with the parties’ their privacy and personal dignity. stand to receive tens of millions of dollars after the sale shared interests, into account. Scorched earth litigation At first, the McCourt divorce was about Frank and of the team. However, neither Frank nor Jamie satisfied is not inevitable, and a choice to proceed collaboratively Jamie and the end of their 30 year marriage. However, any of their primary interests and are ending up with far, often best furthers the parties’ individual interests as well before long, other entities took control of their destiny far less than what they had at the commencement of the as their collective interests. and obliterated any chances of a satisfactory outcome: divorce process. Frank and Jamie’s win-lose paradigm should have been the legal system; Bud Selig and MLB; Fox; the Internal While fans can debate the success of the pre-divorce era confined to the baseball diamond at Dodger Stadium. Revenue Service; the media; and ultimately, the general of the McCourts’ ownership of the Dodgers, during the public, particularly legions of Dodger fans who voted first six years, the team reached the playoffs four times. Jeffery S. Jacobson, Julie A. Milligan and Cozette with their feet by staying away from Dodger Stadium The McCourts purchased the Dodgers in 2004 for $421 C. Vergari are family law attorneys in Los Angeles. to protest the horrifying tales of what Frank and Jamie million, all of which was financed. Based on various All three are members of A Better Divorce, an inter- allegedly had done to their beloved team. reports, the value of the Dodgers today is estimated to disciplinary group of professionals who are commit- Every divorce is impacted by the process choices made be between $1 to $1.2 billion. Unfortunately, that profit ted to the collaborative divorce process — a private, by the parties. Frank set the tone with his decision to fire of hundreds of millions of dollars will be largely eaten non-adversarial method of resolving family law issues Jamie from her position as CEO of the Dodgers, publicly up by loans — both capital gains taxes and potentially without litigation. Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. ©2011 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved. Reprinted by Scoop ReprintSource 1-800-767-3263.