Could Football Have a McCourt Problem?

On Friday, I had the honor of meeting and speaking to Richard Cass, the President of the Baltimore Ravens.   He was the keynote speaker at a conference I was attending.    I also got a chance to speak to him at the reception after the conference.   He even shook my hand.   Squeeing like a fan girl would not have been professional, but I really wanted to do so.

During his speech, Mr. Cass mentioned that one of the cool things about the NFL was that it was basically 31 family owned teams -- and Green Bay which is community owned.   It makes it easier to know who is in charge of the team and makes for a different attitude towards the business of football.   Now some could argue that the idea of an NFL team as a Mom and Pop business is long gone.    Let the business blogs argue that one out.   This is a family law blog.

Which brings up my concern.    If the team is family owned, what happens when the family disintegrates?   What happens when Mom and Pop split up?    We also saw what happened to the Dodgers in the McCourt divorce (quick note, that one finally settled - Frank got the team, Jami got cash, MLB still ticked at everyone involved).

I asked Mr. Cass that very question.   He very graciously answered me.   Seriously, the guy is super nice and approachable.    He said it was unlikely to happen because the teams are not business where you have to sort out shares, etc.   In the NFL one person has to own at least 30% and one person has to have total voting control.    He also mentioned that the NFL has debt limits rules to keep a team's finances from getting too out of whack.

All that may be true, but Mr. Cass is clearly not a family law attorney.    I hate to disagree with such a great guy, but I just don't see how these things save a team from a McCourt style fight over ownership.   I raised these issues in a previous post of the Blank divorce and the Falcons.

Yes, the teams are family owned.   But to keep the families from being personally liable for the debts of a team, they tend to be corporations or limited liability partnerships.   One person may have voting control, but they are still businesses.

Businesses get divided in divorces ALL the time.   A spouse may have made monetary contributions to the business.   A spouse may have made non-monetary contributions such as working at the business without pay or even just making sure the face of the business has a clean shirt and ate recently.   All of these factors go into dividing up a business.

In community property states such as California or Texas, the law may consider the teams to be comunity property automatically entitling the spouse to half.    This would effect 5 teams in the NFL -- the Chargers, the 49ers, the Raiders, the Texans and the Cowboys.   Other states may also be community property states.

Marital property states, such as Maryland where the Ravens are based, would consider whether marital funds were used to purchase or maintain the team.   Marital funds are any money earned during the course of the marriage (with some exceptions).    In a marital property state, the court would consider the contributions of each spouse, the source of the funds, and what an equitable distribution of the property would be.

It is conceivable that a court may consider a team part of the community/marital property subject to division in th event of a divorce.   A court is not really going to care about the NFL bylaws -- except for possibly guidance on how teams are owned, structured and what the League might do in the event of a court fight.   But, the NFL bylaws are not the law of the land.    A judge is bound to apply the rules of the state in which the court hearing the divorce is located.

All is not lost.    The team is probably not the only asset of the divorcing couple.   They most likely have other assets in the pot of community/marital property that need to be divided up.    Contrary to  popular belief, it is not half of everything as in half of each thing.   It is half (or whatever figure) of the total.   So in this situation, a judge realizing the NFL really frowns on split ownership (remember guidance of the bylaws) such that frowning could result in the complete loss of the asset to both parties, will most likely give the team to one party and more cash and other assets to the other party.   In other words, one spouse gets the team and the other spouse gets more of the other goodies in the pot.

Of course, the problem arises when BOTH spouses want to control the team.    A judge is probably not going to divide  ownership -- even without the bylaws -- because that would require the spouses to continue working together.   If they got along, they wouldn't be getting a divorce.  A judge would have to choose between the spouses.   Some very fancy lawyering would have to go on here.    If someone is determined to keep ownership of a team in event of a divorce and can afford to keep fighting, this would go to trial.

In summary, sorry, Mr. Cass, I can see a prolonged court fight over control of a team despite all the rules the NFL has in place.   Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't meant it won't.

The Pain of Divorce

Last night I was working at a pro bono clinic.   Slow night due to all the rain we have had.   Another attorney -- who does not do family law -- and I were talking.   He mentioned some scene in Entourage (a show I have not scene) where the agent says he would murder his wife rather than go through the pain of divorce.

Now, I get it.   Divorce is horribly painful -- both emotionally and financially.    It is basically saying that the people once in love now can't stand to live together.  All that warm fuzzy love turns to cold prickly hate.   It can get messy, even for the most calm, mature person.

Then there is the financial aspect.   You gotta decide who gets what and how much.    If you worked hard to develop your skills to advance in your chosen profession, it really sucks to hand half of it to someone else.   (Of course most people ignore the help the other spouse provided so that you could develop the skills to advance in your chosen profession).  

But murder?   Really?   That is the better choice?

Let's compare for a moment the two options.

Divorce:

Dividing up the stuff.   Sure your spouse gets half  (for the sake of simplicity, we are going with a straight division of property, MMV in each particular case).   But only the half that was earned up to the date of the divorce.   After that, you got all the rest of your life to accumulate more -- that your ex can't have.   If you do remarry -- Prenup is a really good idea to protect your new stuff.

Alimony.   Maryland has moved away from permanent alimony, and I believe so have most states.   Permanent alimony was a check to the spouse for the rest of the spouse's life or until the spouse remarried.   Not a lot of incentive to move on with one's life there.   Now, the courts favor something called rehabilitative alimony.   Rehabilitative alimony is only for a limited time until the spouse can get back on his/her feet and become self-supporting.   Incentive to get off one's butt and work, because the checks won't keep coming forever.   There are a lot of factors to consider in determining rehabilitative alimony:  length of marriage, age of kids if any, skills of the spouse, time needed to acquire a job or skills to become self-supporting.   But, the key here is that it ends at a definite date.   It is over eventually.   Then you never have to pay the spouse again.   Your ex can't come back and say "Oh I know I was supposed to be self-supporting by now, but I'm not, keep paying."  

In summary:   After a painful period of time, the divorce is over and you get to go on with your life, accumulating more stuff and keeping the money you earn.

Murder


You will get caught.   You will go to jail for the rest of your life.   You will not have the opportunity to enjoy all the stuff you managed to keep your spouse from having, you will not have any money to spend because you lost your job because you went to jail.   You will have no opportunity to recover from this because you will most likely die in jail.

In summary:   You never get a chance to recover from being an idiot for thinking murder was a good option.


Did I make that clear for everyone?  

One final note:   bet a family law lawyer is cheaper than a criminal lawyer in the long run too.

Another Divorce, Another Team

It was announced today that Arthur Blank and his wife of 16 years are separating.  Arthur Blank is the owner of the Atlanta Falcons.    He married his current wife in 1995 and bought the team in 2002.    The press release said the separation will have no effect on his business enterprises.  

The last time this happened was the McCourt divorce which engulfed the Dodgers.   The mess got so bad that MLB had to take over running the team.

Most NFL teams are owned by corporations, although NFL Bylaws require one person to have majority ownership.   The NFL wants one person making the decisions.   That person might then incorporate in order to protect assets or for other business reasons.   So, it sounds like everything would be protected in the event of a divorce.

I reached out to a friend who is a Georgia lawyer to see if GA is a community property state (He's also a Falcons fan).   No word yet from him on the news.

If Georgia is a community property state and he bought the team with marital funds, even if he incorporated, she has rights to the team.   (Or some share of it).   Here's why.   There might be a corporation that owns the Falcons.   But corporations issues shares.   If his shares have any value, they are a marital asset.   Which means they can be divided in the event of a divorce.   If GA is a marital property state, same thing essentially.

Now, it is possible that Blank bought the team with separate funds earned before the parties married.   If the source of the funds for buying the team can be traced to separate -- not marital -- property, then the team is free and clear.

Also, it is possible that unlike Jami McCourt, Mrs. Blank wants nothing to do with running a team.   She may relinquish her interest in the team in exchange for some other financial consideration.   Happens all the time in divorces.   Okay, usually not sports teams, but there is always something that someone really wants.

That is why practicing family law is so much fun.   You can get creative.   You can negotiate and think outside the box to reach a solution agreeable to all parties.    You don't have to go to court and pursue a scorched earth strategy.   In fact, court is not a good place to get what you want.   The court is bound by statutes, precedent and other considerations.   There may limits to what a court can grant.   But, a really good family law attorney can reach an agreement that a court could not grant, but is still enforceable and acceptable.

Here's hoping the Blanks go the peaceful route not the McCourt route.    Football just survived one nasty court fight, it does not need another one.

Shut the Heck Up

Gilbert Arenas lost his bid to keep his ex-girlfriend/fiance from appearing on the show Basketball Wives (a misnomer of a reality show as all the participants are ex-wives or ex-girlfriends of b-ball players).   One of his arguments in asking for the injunction was the invasion of his privacy that would occur if the ex were allowed on the show to complain about him.    The judge found that this claim was so much noise signifying nothing.   Specifically, Arenas has a twitter account -- with allegedly thousands of followers -- from which he tweets constantly about his personal life.   In other words, you can't claim your personal life is personal if you splash it all over the internet.  

Newsflash:  the internet is not private.  

Everything you post on the internet is public.   Someone somewhere will see it.   Even if you have "privacy" settings, do the people who have access to your "private" account also have privacy settings?   Do their friends?   And so on and so on and so on.   If you post it, they will see it.

This is true for celebrities with thousands of twitter followers and true for folks with all of 5 friends on Facebook.   Let me repeat:   the internet is not private.

If you are going through a custody/divorce/child support, do not post on facebook, twitter, google+ or anyplace on the internet anything about your ex.   Just don't.   Smart attorneys (like me) will get that information and use it against you.   The judge won't buy your argument of "I was just venting, I didn't think anyone would see it."  

Besides, do you want your kids to see what you posted about the other parent or have their friends see it?   It doesn't help the situation, can only hurt it, so just don't do it.    Resist the temptation to "get even."  

If you have been so foolish as to do post all over the internet what a jerkface your ex is, do not then try to remove it.   You can bet your last pleading that someone already screen captured the posting and sent it to your ex.   Who then helpfully forwarded it to the lawyer.    Now, they can bring up something called "spoliation of evidence" meaning you destroyed possible evidence in the case.   This is a very bad thing to have happen.

One last thing about the internet, do not friend your ex, or have your friends do so for you just to gather incriminating evidence.   Yeah, it sounds like a good idea.   In practice it 1) doesn't help things at all and 2) just makes you look petty and vindicative in court.   As an attorney, I really try to avoid having my clients look petty and vindicative.  

In short -- SHUT THE HELL UP.   It will help your case much better than any posting anywhere on the internet you can make.

Record Setting Child Support Hearing

Okay, this one is not about celebrities, but I couldn't believe it when I read it.    It is record setting not because of the amount.    $14K in back child support is nothing these days.   It's how long the case has gone on.   The divorce was finalized in 1977.  Yeah, last century.  

Apparently, when the couple split, Dad agreed to pay Mom $14K in child support and half of the sale of the house.   He sold the house and kept all the money.   Mom has been fighting ever since.   She lost on everything related to not getting the money from the house.   I don't know why.    Then she found out that child support enforcement has no statute of limitations.    I can bet Dad thought with the kids grown, he was home free.    Dad thought wrong.   With interest and penalties it is now over 100K he owes*.

He could have been over and done with it long ago.   Now he is 77 years old and still dealing with it.    I know I don't want to still be dealing with old debts when I am 77.  

Mom is not exactly into moving on either.   She is still apparently bitter over the divorce.   Telling your ex he is "stuck on stupid" is really not a good way to resolve things.   Folks tend to get less agreeable the more you call them stupid.   I want to know how she has afforded a lawyer all these years.   At some point, realizing a contingency fee was not going to come through (you can take collection on a contingency fee, not the custody proceedings), the attorney was going to want something for the time and effort spent.   Attorneys only have their time and effort to sell, it deserves reasonable compensation.

The moral here:   pay your child support when incurred, unless you want your social security garnished.  The other moral:   name calling is incredibly unhelpful in family law proceedings.  



* I have no idea why the tax refunds were not withheld.   Guess no one thought to do that, even though it is routine now.

McCourts in Court - Update

UPDATE:  I knew I should have posted this sooner.  MLB rejected the tv deal today 6/20/11.    Bud Selig said it would benefit Frank personally too much.   This voids the settlement.  The War of the McCourts is back on.   Again, the lawyers should have planned for this obvious contingency.  

They are defintely going back to Court.    The McCourts have agreed to have a trial.   Umm, that is usually what happens when they can't agree.   An agreement usually avoids a trial.

Apparently, the McCourts are so hung up on who owns the Dodgers (not a lot of argument over anything else) that all they could agree to was to have a one day trial on whether or not the team is community property.   If it is community property, Frank can buy Jamie out.   If it is separate property, then Jamie gets $100 million and all the houses.   No word on what happens to the houses if the team is community property.

Of there are asterisks all over the place.   First of all, MLB must approve the settlement.   Considering Bud Selig is not happy with the McCourts right now, that is not a done deal.   MLB must also approve the Fox TV deal so that Frank has the money to buy out Jami if necessary (they got SIX houses, surely unloading a couple of those might help his finances).   See the previous sentence about Bud Selig's opinion of the McCourts.

Now most folks don't have a baseball team to argue over.   But, you would be amazed at what people will argue over in a divorce.   It's not about the object that is the point of contention.   It's about not letting the other person have it.   With a sports team, there is also the prestige of owning such a team.   A prestige that can be denied to the spouse.

However, the key to remember in any divorce is not so much what you get, but the end goal.   You want a divorce.   You want this person out of your life.   If you continue to fight, you still have to interact with the person.   Which can be the other person's motivation.   By refusing to engage, you get what you really want -- freedom -- and deny the other person their desire -- continued interaction.

This does not mean be a doormat.   But it does mean sometimes walking away rather than continuing to fight. Sometimes keeping the bigger picture in mind is the best strategy.

Someone tell the McCourts this (but not their expensive lawyers who don't even know how to hit print more than once).

What's Old is New -- Athletes and Child Support

While researching what expenses should be considered when calculating child support, I ran across this case:
Jackson v. Proctor

Seems Mr. Jackson and Ms. Proctor were the proud parents of a little girl.   Well, Ms. Proctor was proud.   Dad was trying to cheapskate the child support.    Mom was a full time student.   Dad played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.   At the time of the filing for child support in 1997, Dad was making 18K a month.    The final order  required him to pay $2500 a month in child support*.    He complained that was too much and was unfair.

Let's do the math.   18,000 - 2500 = 15500.   In Maryland (yay, a case in the state where I am licensed) child support is calculated before taxes.   Even taking out taxes, that leaves a lot left over for living expenses -- providing you aren't buying a lot of bling or big houses and cars.   $2500 is a mere 13% of the Dad's monthly income.  

This is what we love to call an "above the guidelines" case.   The Guidelines are the chart of basic child support that the wise legislators in Annapolis decided was necessary to care for a child.   It's a simple chart.   You have income down one side (both parent's combined income since both parents are presumed to contribute to their child's support) and the number of children across the top.   You figure the combined income, then go to the chart and find where the income cross the number of children.   That's the basic child support amount.   In 2010, the legislature finally updated the numbers for the first time in umpteen years.   This case was decided under the "old" guidelines.  

The problem is that the chart only goes up to so much per month.   The old guidelines only went to $10K a month.   The new ones go all the way up to $15K.    If the parents' income is greater than the chart has, the judge has to go "above the guidelines" to determine the correct child support amount.   Now, people much, much, much smarter than me and much, much, much more involved in the issue talk about parabolic curves and extrapolations and the like.   All that gives me a headache.   Basically, a judge has to determine what is the appropriate amount of child support to care for a child in a manner befitting the parent's lifestyle and income.  

Sorry, its a fact of live, but a football player making 18K+ a month is going to have a better lifestyle than someone working at McDonald's.   The child of the football player should have a corresponding better lifestyle -- whether the child lives with the football player or not.   Parents are expects to support and care for their minor children (adult children are a whole other matter -- GET. A. JOB.)  

Dad in this case though, wanted his offspring to live at Mom's lifestyle.    He claimed that Mom didn't live that extravangantly so why should the child?   Yes, Dad actually tried to argue that is was wrong that Mom lived within her means.    Mom responded that she would provide the things a child of a football player should have, if she had the money to do so.   Since Dad was not paying child support to allow her to do so, she could not.  

The Court followed Mom's reasoning.    They further did not take too kindly to Dad trying to stiff his own kid out of kid's activities.   The Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest appellate court) agreed with the trial court.

Look, every parent paying child support believes the other parent is wasting the money on his/herself instead of spending it on the child.   But, a well-paid athlete can afford to provide for his child's reasonable needs without getting too hung up on a little bit going to benefit mom too (like a better house in a safer neighborhood).    If your child is cared for and protected, pay up.    If not, ask for custody yourself.  

But remember, it is for your kid.   No matter how you get along with Mom, don't stiff your kid.  








*This despite evidence his income had tripled since the original filing.  

Oh No - Ocho Does Reality TV

Yes, he did the TO and Ocho show last year.    The ratings about equalled the Bengals play on the field.   With the NFL Lockout stretching into its THIRD month, Ocho is getting bored.   He tried bull riding, snake wrangling and a few other things.   Now he wants to do another reality show.

This reality show will be with Basketball Wives Alumna Evelyn Lozada (someone fill me in here on who she is).   Ocho and Ms. Lozada will allow the cameras to follow them around as they attempt to parent their children.   Not children they have with each other, Ocho and Evelyn are engaged to be married.    Apparently, Evelyn has one child and Ocho has 4 children with three different women.   Great, they are going to start married and blended family life with a reality show.   That bodes so well for their future.

Let me make this simple, adults can choose to do reality shows all they want.   You want to have your every move documents so numnuts with access to the internet but no mental filter can criticize everything you do, go right ahead.   But leave the kids the hell out of it.  

Kids don't get a say in this.   They can't even object to any of the terms of the contract.   They can't say "No Mom, No Dad, I don't want a camera following me everywhere I go."   And if you think child labor laws apply to reality shows like they do scripted tv shows think again.    Nope, these kids will be on camera for hours, with no relief.   Unless the parents call a halt to the filming.   Considering the parents think the show is a good idea in the first place, figure the odds of that happening.

It is exploitation of children pure and simple.   It is not in the best interest of the children to have their lives put all over tv.   Kids needs safety to make the mistakes kids make.   Not to have those mistakes blown up to get ratings.  

Now, all these kids have other parents.   Hopefully the father of Evelyn's child and the mother's of Ocho's kids will refuse permission.    One can hope.   Of course, it depends on how much the other parent gets paid out of it.   (What you are shocked parents would put money ahead of their kids' best interest?   Come spend a day in my law practice.)   Or even if the other parent says no, the reality show wannabe stars can just go to a judge.   That is what Denise Richards did with regards to her girls with Charlie Sheen.    Charlie in one of the few things he has done right recently said no to exploiting his children.   The judge said it would all right.   REALLY JUDGE?    I guess in LA even the judges are star struck.

Hopefully, this show will no do well in the ratings and get cancelled.   Hopefully, Ocho and Evelyn will put their fame whoredom on hold at least where their children are involved.   Hopefully, I will win the lottery this week.    Guess which one of those is most likely to happen.

Death of Osama Bin Laden

I should really be writing about the Royal Wedding or the draft or something, but really, is there any other news today?

I will always remember where I was and what I was doing when first heard.   I was reading Television without Pity while watching Firefly on the Science Channel.   Then the news came across Solosez (a listserv for solo and small firm attorneys run by the ABA).   I couldn't believe it.   After that, things get a little blurry.   I know I didn't turn on the tv right away, I am sure I went some website.   Then I grabbed my phone and called my dad.   I was weeping.  The last time I was weeping like that in phone call home was to tell him I passed the Maryland Bar.  EPLawDad hadn't heard.   He told EPLawBro to turn on the tv.    Bro was being a Bro and didn't want to turn the channel.   I later found out (thank you Facebook) that he was watching the Phillies game where they broke out into spontaneous shouts of USA.    EPLawDad used "the voice" and Bro turned the channel.   Great rejoicing.

Then I called the rest of my family and began emailing friends.    It was just such a relief.   This man had been the boogey man for 20 years.   Now he was gone.   I remember seeing his Nightline interview in 1995(?) where he declared war on the US.   He scared me then.    After 9-11, all I wanted was him dead.

I am a lawyer.   I truly believe in the rule of law.   I believe in everyone deserves their day in court.   I also try not to "hate" anyone.   I reserve that truly strong emotion for the truly evil.   Osama Bin Laden qualified, in my book, as truly evil.   As a human being who believes in the basic dignity of everyone, it is hard to justify rejoicing in the death of anyone.   But, to me, some people are so truly evil, so far beyond the bounds of human decency and civilized behavior, that death is the only option.   A trial in this case would have served nothing but to create a security nightmate.    Wanted dead or alive, means bring 'em back dead, save everyone the cost of a trial.

I believe in the rule of law.   I believe in human dignity.   I have no problem with Osama Bin Laden being dead, dead, dead.    I save my sympathy for the families of his victims.  

I wanted to go join the crowd at the White House last night, but had to work this morning.   Sometimes I hate being a grown up.    But, this I vow, for all of Al Qaeda's victims, I will make it out to Arlington Cemetary and the 9-11 Memorial this week.  

God Bless the USA.

The McCourts in Court

This case is just wonderful for lawyers.   Maybe not so much for the parties involved.   It definitely has not been good for the Dodgers.    What should have been a straighforward, simple divorce -- after all there was a postnuptial agreement -- has so far led to rulings on the validity of that agreement, a lawsuit against the firm who drafted the agreement, an request by the law firm for a declaratory ruling that the firm met its ethical obligations, and finally MLB taking over the Dodgers.

Jami and Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers after they were married.   They had fun running the team.   In 2004, they had the law firm draw up a postnuptial property and settlement agreement.   This agreement says who gets what in the event of a divorce.    Among other things, the ownership of the Dodgers was addressed in this document.   Frank says the agreement gave him sole control and she got all the houses they accumulated (6).   Jami says that is not the agreement, she wouldn't have signed away the Dodgers.   This would not have mattered if the parties stayed married.   But, they didn't.   The marriage fell apart and away to court the McCourts went.

Frank was convinced he had an ironclad agreement.   Apparently, despite paying big bucks for his attorneys, no one told him there was no such thing as an ironclad agreement.   If there were, contract disputes would never see the light of a courtroom.

Jami challenged the agreement in court.   Apparently, there was a wording problem.    Not all the copies of the agreement say the same thing.  (no one had ever heard of copy machines or hitting print multiple times to avoid this?)   In some copies the word "inclusive" is used to describe what property Frank would get and other places it says "exclusive."   Seriously, NO ONE NOTICED TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDS WERE USED?????    An attorney for the firm who wrote up the agreement admits to flubbing the words.     Honestly, if you are paying these guys as much as Frank was most likely paying his attorneys, you would think they would at least take the time to proofread all the copies.  

There was an actual hearing on the agreement itself in December 2010.    A judge ruled the agreement was invalid.   This meant no agreement dividing up the property existed.   Frank had an interest in Jami's property and Jami had an interest in Frank's property.    Everything was up for grabs.

Frank was not happy about having to share the Dodgers with his ex-wife.   Frank hired Sullivan & Cromwell to represent him in any claims he may have against the misdrafting firm of Bingham McCutchen.   Before Frank's new attorneys could act, Bingham hit back.   In something I have never heard before, they filed suit against their client.    For some reason, they filed in Boston, although all events seem to be based in California, which is also the current residence of Frank.    Bingham asks the court to rule that the firm mets it obligations to its client and did nothing wrong.    They also ask for all their attorneys' fees for representing Frank so far in this mess.  This is unusual in that attorneys don't normally go to court to prove they were right.   They defend when sued, but they don't bring the pre-emptive non-malpractice claim.    I have to wonder about the ethics of this as well.    You can't put a clause in the retainer agreement that says "fees are reasonable" or that the client can't sue you for malpractice.    So, how can a firm affirmatively ask a court that the firm did not commit malpractice.   Also, they asked for the ruling in Boston.    Some legal principles may preclude a lawsuit then in California on the same subject, but I just don't see a California court meekly agreeing with whatever a Massachusetts court says on a malpractice claim.

Jami is ecstatic of course.   She just wants to be a part of the Dodgers.    Or be paid off for her share.   This could be quite lucrative -- if Frank has the cash handy to pay her off.   Which leads to the latest bit in this saga.  

The finances of the Dodgers are a mess.   To get sole control, one party would have to buy out the other party.    MLB, just like all the other leagues, has rules about debt and using the team as collateral.    Frank could only borrow so much to buy out Jami.   He reportedly sought a loan on advance television fees.    He went to Bud Selig to get permission to do this, which was denied.   Frank then threatened to sue MLB.   Frank doesn't read agreements real well.   There is a clause in the ownership contract that prohibits said owner from suing MLB (n.b. wonder how enforceable that  little clause is.   Courts don't like clauses that deny people their day in court).  At this point, Bud Selig as MLB comissioner has had it with the McCourt drama.    Does anyone know where the Dodgers are in the standings?   I sure don't.    But lots of people know when the McCourts were in court last and what happened.   Selig decided enough was enough.   He announced on Wednesday that MLB would run the Dodgers.   Another nifty clause in the ownership contract allows this "in the best interest of baseball"*

Most people will never have a fight over who gets the sports team.   However, property agreements can be useful in resolving divorce disputes, no matter the amount of property.   The key is to have a well-drafted one that clearly states each party's intentions.    It may still wind up in court, but it is a starting point.    Divorces get nasty enough, trying to value the property during the divorce is just asking for a long court case.   Property settlement agreements can avoid some of the time and expense, if properly drafted.

So, what have we learned from all this:

1.   There is no such as an ironclad marital property agreement.
2.   Make sure all the copies of said agreement are the same word for word.
3.   Read and understand what you are signing.
4.   It never gets old saying McCourts in Court.
5.   It's not the amount of money you pay your attorney that ensures competence.









*No, I have no idea if the NFL has a similar clause so Goodell can make Jones and Snyder go away.   Feel free to investigate this and get back to me.