Jamie McCourt Calls Divorce Payout Unfair After Dodgers Sale

Former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt’s ex-wife, Jamie McCourt, said the $131 million divorce settlement she agreed to last year is unfair after her ex-husband sold the team for $2.15 billion.

Jamie McCourt, in a request filed Sept. 24 in state court in Los Angeles, said the settlement is based on fraud and asked that it be set aside. Frank McCourt, as late as Aug. 31, 2011, declared under penalty of perjury that the fair market value of their assets was less than $300 million, according to Jamie McCourt’s request.

Frank and Jamie McCourt settled their divorce battle in October 2011 after two years of litigation, including a trial over the validity of their postnuptial agreement. Jamie relinquished her claim to be co-owner of the Major League Baseball team in exchange for $131 million. The sale of the Dodgers in March left Frank with $1.7 billion, Jamie McCourt said.

“This is the most unfair division of assets I have ever seen,” Bert Fields, Jamie McCourt’s lawyer, said today in a phone interview.

Frank McCourt ignored requests to voluntarily adjust the settlement, Fields said.

According to Jamie McCourt’s filing, her ex-husband “appears to claim he was mistaken” about the value of their assets. Even if the understatement of the value of the Dodgers was a mistake rather than fraud, that would also be grounds to set aside the settlement, according to the filing.

Ryan Kirkpatrick, a lawyer for Frank McCourt, didn’t immediately respond to phone calls after regular business hours yesterday for comment on Jamie McCourt’s court filing.

The case is Jamie McCourt v. Frank McCourt, BD514309, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

To contact the reporter on this story: Edvard Pettersson in Los Angeles at epettersson@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.