Frank McCourt finished his testimony after four days on the witness stand while Jamie McCourt was questioned for the first time during the trial, which is scheduled to take a two-week break before reconvening on Sept. 20.
Frank McCourt testified over the course of his four days that the 2004 marital property agreement signed by both parties is valid and that he is the sole owner of the Dodgers.
He was questioned by both his own attorney, Steve Susman, and Jamie McCourt's attorney, David Boies, and contended that a mistake by his longtime Massachusetts-based lawyer Larry Silverstein was corrected before both parties signed the marital property agreement in March 2004.
Frank McCourt called it a clerical error that was discovered the day before he signed three copies of the agreement on March 29, 2004, in Massachusetts, and said that he didn't read the draft version of the document that said the Dodgers were a shared asset when he signed three copies of it on April 14 in California.
Frank McCourt also asserted that Jamie McCourt simply wanted to protect her "nest egg," which refers to the fact that their multiple homes were all in her name to keep business creditors from going after them.
He also testified that he was the only one to sign the paperwork to become the owner of the Dodgers and that Jamie McCourt felt it was a risky deal.
"She may have wanted to be part of it, but why wasn't she willing to sign the promissory note or guarantees to give her name to MLB as a co-owner? You can't own something and not own it," said Susman, Frank McCourt's lead attorney, outside of court.
Jamie McCourt asserted that she did not knowingly sign away her ownership rights when she signed six copies of the marital property agreement in 2004, saying it was only to separate business and personal assets to keep creditors at bay. She called it "preposterous" that she would have signed the document if she realized it included the Dodgers as only Frank McCourt's personal asset in the event of a divorce or death.
"Jamie would not have traded her interest in the Dodgers," said one of her attorneys, Dennis Wasser, outside of court. "You can assess her credibility, but I thought her answer was very credible."
Jamie McCourt and her attorneys also said they believe the marital property agreement should be declared invalid because they were deceived by Frank McCourt and Silverstein. They contend that she never knowingly signed away her ownership rights to the Dodgers because of a switch of the two different versions of the marital property agreement.
Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon will decide whether that marital property agreement is valid.
Jamie McCourt is expected back on the witness stand when the trial resumes on Sept. 20. Attorneys from both sides also said a settlement between the two parties is unlikely despite the two-week break.
"My personal view is that the judge wants to hear Larry Silverstein and he wants to hear Jamie McCourt, and he wants to hear me question Jamie McCourt," Susman said.
Rhett Bollinger is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.Less