Fox News, Marshall W. Waller and Gloria Allred on the McCourt Divorce | Feinberg & Waller, APC, Video Transcripts

Female 1: Now joining us with her own insights into the McCourt divorce case our well-known attorney Gloria Allred, she’s handled high-profile cases herself and says the judge may decide the post-nuptial agreements have too many ambiguities and he’ll divide the property evenly.

[GRAPHIC: Dodger Divorce, Gloria Allred, High Profile “Feminist” Attorney, “The Court may have to ignore all those post-nuptials and do what’s fair: divide the property evenly”]

Thank you Gloria for being here.

[GRAPHIC: Dodger Divorce, Marshall W. Waller, Family Law Attorney, Judge will have to sort through the various post-nuptial agreements and enforce the one that’s legal.]

And attorney Marshall W. Waller has also handled celebrity cases, he recently got child support for ,’s estranged wife and two kids, he thinks the judge will have to sort through the various post-nups and enforce whichever one is legal. Alright, let me ask you both to give me your opinion, what stands out today? Gloria?

[GRAPHIC: Gloria Allred, Attorney]

Female 2: Christine I think what stands out today is that there are inconsistencies in these agreements, and there are ambiguities and in California there is a presumption that there is community property is property was acquired after the marriage, which obviously the Dodgers was acquired after the marriage, and so I think any ambiguities in the agreement need to be resolved against the party who’s responsible for them. That’s Frank McCourt, and that means that the presumption that everything is community property I think is the presumption that should stand in this case.

Female 1: Marshall let me first get your take on what went down today in court.

[GRAPHIC: Marshall W. Waller, Attorney]

Male: I think that Jamie had a nice victory today in court, she’s gonna have the opportunity to discuss the so-called California version of the agreement. I disagree with Gloria’s position with regard to this, the judge’s take on this case. The Judge really has to look at these agreements as they were intended. We have the distinction in the exhibits, that’s the only extinctions – distinction. In fact if we accept Jamie’s position with regard to the exhibit that should prevail, essentially Frank McCourt gets virtually none of his business interest as a separate property, she gets all of the other stuff.

Female 1: We’re talking about the marital property agreement. There’s a difference when the California one and the Massachusetts one. Gloria your reaction to what Marshall had to say?

Female 2: Well I do think that because there’s a difference, that I think that Frank McCourt is really not able to rebut the presumption that everything is community property.

[GRAPHIC: Dodgers Divorce, McCourt Divorce Case]

This is a lengthy marriage, this is a 29 year marriage, and because of that I think it’s correct under California law to presume that everything is community property unless the parties have clearly contracted otherwise, and because they haven’t clearly shown their intent in all of these agreements because of the inconsistencies, I say everything should be community property.

Female 1: Marshall, is it unclear? People say that Jamie is an accomplished attorney herself, is it unclear or was there some kind of deceit here?

Male: It appears to me, and of course I don’t know all the facts, I haven’t heard the testimony and I haven’t review the depositions, it does occur to me that somebody made a mistake somewhere. There are these two exhibits, and it is almost impossible in my opinion to reconcile the two. However, I also feel that it is equally difficult for Jamie to recognize the exhibit that she seeks to employ, the California Exhibit A, with the overall terms of the agreement as intended by the parties.

[GRAPHIC: Marshall W. Waller, Attorney]

There seems to be no dispute that is was the party’s intention that the assets in Frank McCourt’s name would be his separate property, and the assets in Jamie McCourt’s name would be her separate property, and if we’re going to plug the California exhibit A into that analysis, the entire agreement makes no sense, so the judge really has to evaluate what all of these people intended in this.

Female 1: We’re talking about documents that were signed in Massachusetts and in California, one with the words exclusive, one with the words inclusive. Let me ask you now, Frank is going to testify tomorrow, Gloria what do you ask him?

Female 2: Well I think Frank is going to testify, and I think he’s going to have to be asked about why there are inconsistencies in the agreement.

[GRAPHIC: Gloria Allred, Attorney]

If in fact he tries to argue that it was just a mistake as we think that he is going to argue, that maybe his lawyer made a mistake, well he is going to be charged with the mistake that his lawyer made, and that’s not a mistake in his favor, that’s a mistake in Jamie’s favor. You know, maybe in the end if this case is resolved against him, maybe he’s going to have a malpractice claim against his lawyer. I don’t know if he’s going to be able to prove malpractice, but if so it shouldn’t be Jamie that has to pay for his mistake.

Female 1: Alright Marshall, last word on what happens tomorrow?

Male: I actually agree with Gloria, I think that Frank and his team is going to have to explain the problem between these two exhibit A documents. I think his attorney is going to have to show up, he’s going to have to explain exactly how this happened, because frankly this kind of thing should not happen under these circumstances.

[GRAPHIC: Dodgers Divorce]

Female 1: Alright, Marshall W. Waller and Gloria Allred, thank you so much for being here.

Female 2: Thank you.

Female 1: They’re calling it the costliest divorce case in California history, and we’re watching.

[End of Audio]