August 1, 2011 – The contentious divorce between Jamie McCourt, former CEO of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and her estranged husband, Frank McCourt, is a legal dispute rich with intricate family law nuances.  In 2009, the McCourts separated and began their divorce proceedings; however, the majority of debate was over whether the Dodgers assets were community property (50% belonging to Jamie and 50% to Frank) or solely owned by Frank McCourt.

During September of 2010, the validity of the postnuptial agreement, which the couple signed in March 2004, was the primary focus of the ensuing trial.  Frank McCourt testified during the divorce trial that the couple’s postnuptial agreement was his wife’s idea to protect her assets from his creditors.  Frank McCourt’s attorney contended that the agreement gave Frank sole ownership of the Dodgers, the stadium and the surrounding property.

Jamie McCourt claimed that the postnuptial agreement should be invalid on the basis that she felt she had been duped by McCourt and a family attorney at the time of signing.  She stated that six copies of the agreement were shown to the couple, only three of which listed the Dodgers’ as McCourt’s separate assets.  Three months later, the judge ruled the postnuptial agreement invalid, allowing Jamie McCourt’s attorney to push for her client to receive 50% of the Dodgers’ assets.

On June 17, 2001, Jamie and Frank McCourt’s divorce dispute finally reached settlement and the Dodgers’ assets were split 50-50.  However, just a month after settlement, Frank McCourt requested that the judge reduce the amount of spousal support he is currently paying Jamie.

Clearly, this case is a prime example of several intricate legal nuances—from postnuptial agreements to spousal support.  And perhaps most striking is the appearance of a postnuptial agreement, since postnuptial agreements are rarer than prenuptial agreements.  In many cases, the court may decide to disregard a postnuptial agreement, as with the Jamie and Frank McCourt dispute, because postnuptial agreements are often challenged and scrutinized more thoroughly.  Thus, disclosing all assets in a postnuptial agreement is paramount.  The purpose of such agreements is to ensure fairness, and when the judge finds the postnuptial agreement to be unfair to either party, it is more likely to be disregarded.

For the most recent news on the McCourt divorce:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/2011-07-16-664674472_x.htm