The judge in the divorce trial of Frank and Jamie McCourt has ruled in favor of Jamie McCourt today, invalidating the 2004 marital property agreement which separated the couple's real estate assets and the Dodgers, among other things. However, this ruling doesn't necessarily mean Jamie McCourt is again a co-owner of the Dodgers. More likely, today's ruling was just a single step in a long journey of appeals, which means the question of who owns the Dodgers might not be answered definitively for a few years.
Los Angeles Superior Court judge Scott Gordon issued his ruling Tuesday morning, wrote Bill Shaikin and Carla Hall of the Los Angels Times:
"The court finds that the marital property agreement is not a valid and enforceable agreement," Gordon wrote in his ruling. "The court orders that the marital property agreement is set aside."
ESPN's Molly Knight called today's decision the end of the "first phase of the couple's contentious and costly division of assets." At the heart of the issue, of course, is the ownership of the Dodgers. Both sides have said they wish to pass on ownership of the team to their four sons, so perhaps today's ruling could lead to a settlement between the two McCourts. In either case, it appears neither Frank nor Jamie have enough assets to own the Dodgers individually, meaning they would need to take on investors to buy the other side out. But that seems like a long way down the road.
Josh Fisher of DodgerDivorce.com summed up today's ruling best when he tweeted, "Think of this as the beginning of the end, although the end might take longer than the beginning."
For more Dodgers news and information, be sure to read the SB Nation Dodger blog True Blue LA.