The Count is Three and One and Here’s the Pitch…

Last November, I used the divorce action between Frank and Jamie McCourt to explain the issue of personal goodwill under Pennsylvania divorce law. Here is a link to that original post. The Huffington Post reports that the McCourt divorce may conclude today.

One of the issues that may be decided today is whether the agreement the couple signed in 2004 after they had been married marriage, commonly referred to as a “postnuptial agreement” signed by the couple in 2004 is valid under California law. The agreement indicates who would be receiving ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team. The added wrinkle to this case is that, during the trial, it was discovered that the couple unwittingly signed two different versions of the agreement – one which gave the Dodgers to Frank and three others that did not.

If you are thinking that my math was wrong (1 +3 = 2), let me explain. It is not uncommon that, when marital settlement agreements are signed that multiple copies of the same document are signed. If both parties are signing the same document twice, they are signed in duplicate. If there are four copies signed at the same time, it is considered to have been signed in quadruplicate. Each of the signed documents is legally considered to be the original document. If either party needs to go to court at some point in the future to enforce or otherwise interpret the provisions of the agreement, the Court usually wants to see the original document.

In some jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, there is a “best evidence” rule. That rule provides, if a party wants to prove the content of a writing or recording, the original of that writing or recording is required. My signing multiple copies of the exact same document, parties can create multiple originals, any one of which would be admissible in Court.

In the McCourt case, it appears that the attorney, who advised the parties and helped draft the agreement, replaced a page in one of the agreements. Three of the documents that were signed included an addendum that the team was community property and, therefore, subject to division by the Court; one version had a page which indicated the Dodgers were Frank’s separate property. Neither Frank nor Jamie knew about the swapped page.

For a good summary of the issues involved, I would suggest reading the following article from the L.A. Times: A Look at Where the McCourt Case Stands.