Attorney denies he committed fraud by switching portion of McCourt postnuptial agreement

Lawyer denies fraud claim in McCourt divorce case

LOS ANGELES — A lawyer who once represented Jamie and Frank McCourt denied Thursday he committed fraud when he switched a key portion of a postnuptial marital agreement that excluded the Los Angeles Dodgers from Frank McCourt’s separate assets.

Larry Silverstein was on the witness stand Thursday for the third consecutive day in the couple’s divorce trial. The McCourts are fighting over ownership of the team, the stadium and the surrounding land, worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The trial is slated to take a break Friday, when attorneys on both sides are expected to go into mediation, according to a person familiar with the case who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about settlement discussions.

Jamie McCourt is seeking to have Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon toss out the agreement, allowing her to have a stake in the Dodgers under California’s community property law. Frank McCourt believes he is the sole owner and the pact should be upheld.

Silverstein said he regretted not telling the couple about making a change to fix what he called a mistake in April 2004 to a key portion of the agreement that went from excluding the Dodgers from Frank McCourt’s separate property to including the team.

“I admit it was not the best practice,” Silverstein said.

Jamie McCourt’s legal team claimed her husband and Silverstein engaged in fraud by making the correction without telling their client.

When asked by one of Frank McCourt’s attorneys if he committed fraud, Silverstein responded, “Absolutely not.”

Frank McCourt also denied the claim during his testimony earlier this month.

Silverstein said Wednesday he wrote the word “exclusive” in a draft of the agreement to reflect that the team and the businesses were Frank McCourt’s alone. It turns out that Silverstein gave the couple six copies to sign at their Massachusetts home in March 2004, three of which had the Dodgers as Frank McCourt’s separate property, and three others that didn’t.

On redirect questioning by David Boies, an attorney for Jamie McCourt, Silverstein seemed to be confused with the timeline when the couple signed the agreement. He previously testified he drew a line through a draft that had the “exclusive” language and replaced it with “inclusive” a day before the couple signed the document on March 30.

But Silverstein told Boies that he made the handwritten change a few weeks later on the same day he replaced a copy of the agreement that included the Dodgers as Frank McCourt’s separate asset.

Asked outside of court why he posed the question to Silverstein, Boies said the answer showed Silverstein may not be truthful.

“It’s mostly just to show his story keeps changing,” Boies said.