AFP: Lawsuit over silent screen star Mary Pickford's Oscar o

[silentfilm]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... jGYn8HRpxQ

Lawsuit over silent screen star Mary Pickford's Oscar opens
22 hours ago

LOS ANGELES (AFP) — A court case pitting the Oscar-awarding Academy of Motion Pictures against the three owners of a golden statue won by silent screen star Mary Pickford has opened in a Los Angeles court.

The Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences which has organized the annual awards ceremony since 1929, argues the co-owners do not have the right to sell Pickford's two Oscars, and another belonging to her third husband Charles (Buddy) Rogers, without its agreement.

When the case opened Wednesday the academy argued that it had the right to buy back the awards for only 10 dollars if they were put up for sale.

"The academy is very protective of its most famous symbol," its lawyer Christopher Tayback told the jury.

The academy says both Pickford, who died in 1979, and Rogers, who passed away in 1999, had agreed to the clause in a signed contract.

But the heirs of the estate, who are related to Rogers' second wife, Beverley, say Pickford's signature was forged.

The heirs say they only want to respect the will of Beverley Rogers, who died in January 2007, and sell one of Pickford's Oscars to raise an estimated 500,000 dollars for the Buddy Rogers youth orchestra in California.

The Oscar at the center of the dispute was won for Pickford's role in the 1929 movie "Coquette." She won a second Lifetime Achievement award in 1976.

Pickford, who was also married to Douglas Fairbanks before meeting Rogers, was one of the founding members of the Academy.

Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved.

[silentfilm]

http://www.mydesert.com/article/2008121 ... 015/news08

Witness testifies in legal battle over Pickford's Oscar
BILL HETHERMAN • City News Service • December 10, 2008

One of three women sued over the proposed sale of a Mary Pickford Oscar told a jury Tuesday that she and the others are fighting the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in court because they are legally bound to do so.

Kim Boyer, who along with her mother and her cousin obtained the Oscar and two others through inheritance, said her late aunt Beverly Rogers' will stipulated that the statuette that Pickford won in 1930 be sold to benefit a charity for underprivileged children wanting to learn about music and obtain instruments.

“I had to do everything in my power I could ... to carry out the wishes of my aunt's will,” Boyer said. “It is my understanding we had no choice ... we had to follow the terms of the will.”

Pickford, who had lived in the Coachella Valley, was among the founders of the Academy in 1927 and won the Oscar for best actress — the first for a talkie — for the 1929 film “Coquette.”

She also was given an honorary Oscar in 1976 for her contributions to the film industry and the development of film as an artistic medium.

Along with the two Pickford Oscars, Boyer and the other two women have a third statuette that was presented in 1986 to actor and band leader Charles “Buddy” Rogers as the recipient of the Academy's Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

Buddy Rogers was married to Pickford from 1937 until her death in 1979.

Two years later, he married Beverly Rogers, who inherited the statuettes upon his death in 1999.

When Beverly Rogers died in January 2007, the Oscars became the property of her sister, Marian D. Stahl, now 86, of Rancho Mirage; Stahl's daughter Boyer; and Boyer's cousin, Virginia Patricia Casey. Boyer and Casey live in Washington state.

Academy price: $10
The Academy claims in in its anticipatory breach lawsuit that it has a contractual right to buy the three Pickford-Rogers statuettes at $10 a piece if they are ever put up for sale. Both Pickford and Buddy Rogers signed receipts giving the Academy first right of refusal to the Oscars, according to AMPAS.

While on the witness stand, Boyer did not dispute testimony earlier Tuesday by Scott Miller, AMPAS' assistant general counsel, who said she proposed during a May 2007 meeting that he approach some members of the Academy to see if they would donate money to the charity mentioned in her aunt's will in exchange for the return of the “Coquette” Oscar to AMPAS.

“I knew there would be some members willing to donate,” Boyer said.

“I told him we were not receiving a dime of this and it would all go to charity.”

Disputed testimony
However, Boyer disputed Miller's testimony in which he denied telling her that Pickford was not a vital figure in film history and therefore the statuette was not worth the price she was asking.

“He said Mary Pickford was not really that important,” Boyer said.

Boyer also contested Miller's testimony that he believed she was going to go ahead and sell the Oscar because they could not reach an agreement during their conversation. Boyer said that on the contrary, she never intended to go forward with the sale without getting either the permission of the Academy or a judge.

In the end, Miller offered about a 10th of what Boyer had judged the value of the statuette to be based on her research, so no resolution was attained, she said.

Upon questioning by her lawyer, Mark D. Passin, Boyer said she was sure her version of the conversation with Miller was accurate.

“This estate is my whole life,” Boyer said. “I'm going to remember what happened in this entire meeting.”

Boyer said she quit her job in Washington state to handle matters involving her aunt's estate and lost with it her benefits and her retirement.

She said the legal fees in fighting the AMPAS suit are so high that part of the proceeds of the “Coquette” Oscar, if it is ever sold, will have to be diverted to pay lawyers.

But she said most of the money would still go to the charity.

Boyer and the other two defendants also maintain that the Pickford signature on the agreement cited by the Academy is not authentic.

[misspickford9]

“He said Mary Pickford was not really that important,” Boyer said.

*blood boiling*

I doubt she's lying...that sounds like something a ***** industry person would say these days. Right alongside "D.W. who? Oh that Klan guy..."

[silentfilm]

I really doubt that he would have said that, seeing that Pickford was one of the founding members of the same Academy that he worked for...

These people are funny, in that they think that someone's will will trump a legal agreement made before the will. I can see why a lawyer took their case though. Since apparently one of Pickford's assistants signed her name to the document, instead of Pickford herself.

[Frederica]

These people are funny, in that they think that someone's will will trump a legal agreement made before the will. I can see why a lawyer took their case though. Since apparently one of Pickford's assistants signed her name to the document, instead of Pickford herself.

Standard practice; I'll bet that lawyer hasn't signed one of his own documents in years.

Fred

[misspickford9]

These people are funny, in that they think that someone's will will trump a legal agreement made before the will. I can see why a lawyer took their case though. Since apparently one of Pickford's assistants signed her name to the document, instead of Pickford herself.

Standard practice; I'll bet that lawyer hasn't signed one of his own documents in years.

Fred

Eh she may be a founding member, but no one has respect these days so I still believe he said that. As for the whole debate at hand here if she did indeed sign it then they have no case. But Im confused over the status of the 1929 Oscar as they didnt have that stipulation then (did the 79 one take care of that?)

Also if she didnt assign it I think its a matter of 'power of attorney'. That lawyer probably signs his own legal documents. Im almost certain the only way for it to be legal would be she had to sign it; or someone she authorized in a legal format (i.e. the power of attorney) would have to do it. Some random assistant with no power of attorney wouldnt have a legal right...I think...

I hate legal jargon LOL!

[silentfilm]

http://www.mydesert.com/article/2008121 ... 015/news08

Closing arguments heard in Mary Pickford Oscar case
Jury will begin deliberations on Monday
City News Service • December 13, 2008

An 86-year-old Rancho Mirage woman, her daughter and another woman who want to sell a Mary Pickford Oscar are bound by an agreement signed on behalf of the famous actress that gives the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences the first option to purchase it, an AMPAS attorney told a Los Angeles jury Friday.


“This case is about whether or not there is an enforceable agreement,” Academy attorney Christopher Tayback said. “The evidence is overwhelming.”

But defense attorney Mark D. Passin said the women — who want to use money from the sale of the Oscar for a donation to charity in accordance with the will of a relative — said his clients are not bound by the Academy rule that has been in place more than 50 years.

In addition, Passin said, the signature on the agreement that purports to be that of Pickford is not hers at all.

“Mary Pickford did not sign the receipt and did not enter any agreement with the Academy,” Passin said.

Rancho Mirage resident Marian D. Stahl, her daughter Kim Boyer and Boyer's cousin, Virginia Patricia Casey, inherited the Oscar when Stahl's sister, Beverly Rogers, died in January 2007.

Attorneys delivered closing arguments Friday in the trial of the Academy's civil lawsuit — filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court — against the three women, who inherited not only the Oscar in dispute, but also a second Pickford Oscar and a third once owned by Pickford's third husband, actor and band leader Charles “Buddy” Rogers.

Pickford's most famous husband was her second spouse, Douglas Fairbanks, to whom she was married from 1920 to 1936.

Tayback described the two in his opening statement as more famous in their day than Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

Boyer testified this week that the will of her late aunt, Beverly Rogers, stipulated that the best actress statuette that Pickford won in 1930 be sold to benefit a charity for underprivileged children wanting to learn about music and obtain instruments.

Pickford was among the founders of the Academy in 1927 and won the Oscar for best actress — the first for a talkie — for the 1929 film “Coquette.”

She also was given an honorary Oscar in 1976 for her contributions to the film industry and the development of film as an artistic medium.

Along with the two Pickford Oscars, Boyer and the other two women have a third statuette that was presented in 1986 to Buddy Rogers as the recipient of the Academy's Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

Buddy Rogers was married to Pickford from 1937 until her death in 1979.

Two years later, he married Beverly Rogers, who inherited the statuettes upon his death in 1999.

The Academy claims in its lawsuit that it has a contractual right to buy the three Pickford- Rogers statuettes at $10 apiece if they are ever put up for sale.

Both Pickford and Buddy Rogers signed receipts giving the Academy first right of refusal to the Oscars, according to AMPAS.

Although Passin cited the testimony of a handwriting expert who testified the Pickford signature was not authentic, Tayback countered that that did not matter because someone who had the actress' authorization — most likely her personal secretary, Esther Helm — penned her name to the document.

Helm is now dead.

The jury will begin deliberating Monday.

[silentfilm]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 3492.story

Jury bars auction of Mary Pickford's Oscar
If heirs want to sell the actress' 1930 award, they must give the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences the first chance to buy it, for $10, jurors decide.
By Bob Pool
December 16, 2008
And the Oscar for best Hollywood courtroom drama goes to . . . the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The golden statuette was awarded Monday by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury, which ruled that if Mary Pickford's heirs want to sell it, they have to offer it to academy officials for $10 instead of auctioning it off for as much as $800,000.


Academy leaders took a Rancho Mirage woman, her daughter and a cousin to court after the women announced plans to sell the Oscar presented in 1930 to the silent-movie star known as "America's sweetheart" and donate the proceeds to charity.

Marian Stahl, daughter Kim Boyer and Boyer's cousin Virginia Casey are disposing of Pickford's estate, which at one time filled the legendary Beverly Hills estate known as Pickfair.

Along with the best actress Oscar for 1929's silent melodrama "Coquette," the estate also includes an honorary Oscar bestowed upon her in 1976 and a third Oscar, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, presented to actor-bandleader Buddy Rogers in 1986.


Rogers married Pickford in 1937 after her divorce from actor Douglas Fairbanks. After Pickford's death in 1979, Rogers married Beverly Rogers. He died in 1999 and she died in 2007, leaving the estate to Stahl, who is her sister, Boyer and Casey.

Jealously guarding the Oscar trademark, the film academy has since 1951 required recipients to sign an agreement giving the group the right of first refusal to buy back any unwanted Oscar for the token price of $10 (though that amount was later reduced to $1).

That has made pre-1951 Oscars a hot commodity. The best picture statuette for 1939's "Gone With the Wind" was purchased for $1.54 million nine years ago by Michael Jackson. The best picture Oscar for 1941's "How Green Was My Valley" sold for $95,000 four years ago.

Because Pickford signed the agreement when her honorary Oscar was presented to her and because she was a founder of the academy who remained a member until her death, academy officials contend that the 1930 Oscar was grandfathered into the rule on right of first refusal.

During an occasionally theatrical two-week downtown trial, an unidentified pair of 1930s-era Oscars were displayed to jurors, and a recent Pickfair estate auction catalog displaying hundreds of Pickford movie memorabilia items was brought to court.

The heirs sought to prove that the signature on the academy's 1975 honorary Oscar agreement was not Pickford's, who they suggested was too infirm to have signed it. The academy argued that she had her personal secretary, the late Esther Helm, sign her name for her.

Jurors only deliberated about an hour Monday before returning with their academy award on an 11-1 vote. Judge Joseph Kalin is expected to hear further arguments next Monday on equitable and legal issues not ruled on by the jury.

"We're arguing that the receipt is an unenforceable agreement. The case is not over yet," said Mark Passin, a lawyer for the heirs.

"The academy has tried to bury us in this litigation. The academy spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so the charities specified in Beverly Rogers' will won't receive any money. My clients are very upset. They pretty much spent their entire inheritance to fight the academy."

Passin said Boyle had offered to donate the Oscar to the academy if the group would help find academy members willing to donate its worth to the Buddy Rogers Youth Symphony in the Coachella Valley. The 1930 Pickford statuette could have sold for $500,000 to $800,000 on the open market, he said.

David Quinto, a lawyer for the academy, said the organization on principle would never ask a member to donate money for the benefit of a third party attempting to flaunt current rules and sell an old Oscar.

"Every other heir out there would be saying, 'What do you gimme for it?' " when disposing of a deceased Oscar winner's property, he said.

Prior to the trial, the academy offered to make a direct charitable contribution of $50,000 if the heirs turned over Pickford's 1930 statuette. Later, they increased the offer to $200,000 "only because Mary Pickford was a founder" of the academy, Quinto said Monday.

Word of the ruling was greeted glumly in the Coachella Valley.

"It's a shame money intended to help children has been squandered," said Eric Frankson, a La Quinta musician involved with violin lessons for 332 students through the Buddy Rogers Youth Symphony.

Outside the courtroom, the melodrama continued, with Quinto suggesting the heirs would have spent proceeds from any statuette sale to cover their attorney costs.

Not so, countered Passin.

All three Oscars from the Pickford-Rogers estate will permanently remain with the heirs, Passin said.

Or maybe not.

Quinto asserted that the academy is entitled to buy Pickford's pair for a total of $20.

Passin shot back: "There was absolutely no ruling to that effect."

As with every good courtroom drama, the plot thickens.

Pool is a Times staff writer.

[misspickford9]

Excuse me may I now quote the ever amazing series "The Critic"? "Attention LA Street Gangs! Why shoot each other when there are more deserving *academy folk* just miles from your door! Their addresses are..." LOL!

But seriously is it just me or does it sound like the Academy represenative is TRYING to push the heirs buttons? First he sits and slights what they may or may not have done with the money, then says they offered a low amount (and I again believe the heirs when they said Pickford wasnt that important), then says they cant let heirs get their way so donating is too much to ask anyways, AND THEN says "Oh you cant even keep them we get em for $20!"...ya know just to be a well...you all asked me not to swear on this board so I wont. But you get what I mean.

Seriously this is by far the stupidest thing ever. From what I can see of it the 2 newer Oscars maybe should fall under that ruling, but the 1930 one shouldnt (why is it more special than Gone with the Wind's?) AND DESPITE THAT it really says something about the Academy that they wouldnt offer to donate the sum to charity in the first place...whats so freakin terrible about that?!?!!?!?!

</rant>

[Frederica]

Seriously this is by far the stupidest thing ever. From what I can see of it the 2 newer Oscars maybe should fall under that ruling, but the 1930 one shouldnt (why is it more special than Gone with the Wind's?) AND DESPITE THAT it really says something about the Academy that they wouldnt offer to donate the sum to charity in the first place...whats so freakin terrible about that?!?!!?!?!

</rant>

Well, that's what the lawsuit was about, the fact that both Rogers and Pickford signed agreements stating the older Oscars were subject to the same terms of ownership as those awarded after 1951. Being required to "donate" money to charity to regain possession of something you have a legal and contractual right to smacks of extortion. Eleven jurors looked at the evidence and agreed with the Academy. The Academy does a bangup job of protecting their history and film heritage, and they make those materials available to scholars. Pickford was a founding member of the Academy; I think she would have been pleased with their verdict. I know I am.

Fred

[silentfilm]

Even if you disagree with the Academy, they did have a signed agreement on the $10 purchase price for all the Oscars. One thing that made it interesting was that apparently Pickford's assistant signed the document for her, probably since Pickford was very frail by then.

I can't specify things in my will that override other legal agreements, or things that don't actually belong to me. I remember that this was a big plot-point in the great film Body Heat. If I die, the kids get my house, but also the legal agreement like the mortgage that is still in effect.

The Academy doesn't want to see people bidding hundreds of thousands of dollars for an award that they didn't earn. They also don't want to see impoverised actors selling their awards so as to live on the profit. I know that this is occasionally a problem with NFL Super Bowl rings. If you don't want to agree to the terms, then don't accept the award.

The people suing the academy had to know that they did not have a very strong case. And their attorneys would have taken a big chunk of the Oscar proceeds if they had won. They are still free to give it to someone or donate it to a museum.

[stairstars]

They are still free to give it to someone or donate it to a museum.

Not without permission of the Academy. The agreements makes any transfer of ownership subject to their right of first refusal. They could, of course, refuse to exercise that right.

I think the two previous posters have covered both sides of the issue well. It seemed to me, that without her actual signature that they had a flaw in their case. Instead, they argued that her intent from being a Founder and lifelong member could be inferred. I think that slaps contact law in the face. Try going to court in this country to gain possession of a property or defend ownership of one without a notarized signature on the legals. Your intents and purpose, lacking same, could cripple your claim.

I also have to question why she did not then leave them to the Academy, as she lived for three more years, nor why Buddy did not, who survived her by another 20 years. This is the same woman who refused to be seen in public since the mid 1960s and, according to published accounts, wanted to burn all her films?

Since, the Boyer's have recently been selling many other assets of the Estate, possibly the jury found them to be mercenary. AMPAS introduced that recent sales catalog into evidence without mention that in 1981 Buddy sold Pickfair and nearly everything in it in a much larger sale.

I am in favor of AMPAS protecting what is theirs and I am not unhappy with the result, but I wish the case had been decided on the veracity of someone else signing what is in essence a contract rather than their self professed right of ownership beyond death. They seem like two different issues to me.

rick

[Frederica]

Here's an interesting take on the Pickford Oscar case, from the legal perspective.

If the jury made their decision in only an hour, clearly they didn't think Rogers' heirs had much of a case. They had about enough time to get seated in the jury room, elect a foreman, and take one vote. Maybe they asked for coffee.

********************************

December 16, 2008 6:30 PM

In Oscar Case, a Victory for Quinn...and Tough Loss for Dreier
Posted by Zach Lowe

A good month for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges just got better, and a bad month for firms associated with Marc Dreier just got a little worse.

Fresh off their win in the Mattel-Bratz bloodbath, Quinn Emanuel scored a win for one of its regular clients, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, which had filed suit to prevent the heirs of silent film star Mary Pickford from auctioning off her Oscar awards (and one belonging to her ex-husband, Buddy Rogers).

The heirs, represented by Dreier Stein Kahan Browne Woods George, a West Coast affiliate of Dreier LLP, announced plans to auction the Oscars to raise money for Rogers' charity. The Academy filed suit, arguing it had first dibs on buying the Oscars for $10 apiece. (Experts had speculated that the Oscars, especially Pickford's Best Actress trophy for the 1929 film Coquette, could bring in between $500,000 and $1.5 million).

The case, argued in front of a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury, hinged on whether Pickford was bound by a 1951 rule codifying the Academy's $10 right of first refusal. The rule wasn't around when Pickford won her first Oscar, but the Academy argued that she signed papers saying she agreed to the rule when she won an honorary Oscar in 1976.

Pickford's heirs argued that the star never signed those papers, and they summoned noted handwriting expert Lloyd Cunningham to testify in support of that argument--the same Lloyd Cunningham whom Quinn Emanuel called to testify in the Mattel-Bratz case. In that matter, Cunningham testified that Mattel alum Carter Bryant likely forged a document supposedly proving he'd invented the Bratz line after leaving Mattel.

The Quinn team, led by David Quinto and Christopher Tayback, told jurors that if Pickford didn't sign the papers, it's likely her secretary and longtime confidante did.

"Either way, it looked a helluva lot like (Pickford's) signature," Quinto says.

In any case, Quinto says, Pickford was bound by the Academy's 1951 rule. (Trivia for movie buffs: The Academy adopted that rule after Sid Grauman, former owner of Grauman's Chinese Theater, in Hollywood, auctioned off his Oscar in 1949; the Academy bought it back at auction. The sidewalk outside that theater is the location where so many Hollywood stars have placed their hands and feet in wet cement. Interestingly, this New York Times story says the Academy allowed Harold Russell, the World War II veteran who won an Oscar for The Best Years of Our Lives, to auction off his Oscar.)

Dreier Stein partner Mark Passin disagreed, but the jury took less than an hour to come back with an 11-1 vote in favor of the Academy.
But Passin says the case isn't done. On Monday, a judge will hear arguments on several legal questions outside the jury's purview, including whether the $10 rule is enforceable because it imposes property rights restrictions across generations--something Passin argues is limited to real estate.

The two sides disagree over whether the case could have ended much earlier with a $200,000 donation from the Academy to Buddy Rogers's charity. Quinto says the Academy offered the donation in exchange for the Oscar early on, but that Passin rejected it only to try and revive the talks shortly before trial. The Academy said Passin was too late, according to Quinto.

Passin says that account is inaccurate. He agrees that the Academy made the initial offer but says they took it off the table "shortly thereafter," and he claims the Academy's initial offer emerged only after both sides had done considerable work preparing for trial.

[stairstars]

Thank You, Frederica, for posting that.

I look forward to the Judge's rulings on the other issues on Monday.

Also, if memory serves, Karl Malden, then President of the Academy, tried valiantly to stop Harold Russell's sale of one of his Oscars (he won a competitive and special Oscar for the same performance in 1947) at the time.
Since, he was never honored again, there was no post 1951 signed agreement. There was a bit of soap opera climate surrounding that sale involving whether Russell was selling the statue to raise needed medical funds for his wife - a tale he rebuked before the sale, stating he and his wife wanted to travel in their golden years.

rick

[misspickford9]

Well honestly I dont agree with the legality of it either...something isnt fully right (its not as cut and dry as the Academy wants it to seem).

BUT lets just even per se` the ruling was fair. I dont think its hard to disagree this guy is being a massive...well...you know. Very childish in his actions.

[Frederica]

Well honestly I dont agree with the legality of it either...something isnt fully right (its not as cut and dry as the Academy wants it to seem).

BUT lets just even per se` the ruling was fair. I dont think its hard to disagree this guy is being a massive...well...you know. Very childish in his actions.

What guy?

Fred

[misspickford9]

Well honestly I dont agree with the legality of it either...something isnt fully right (its not as cut and dry as the Academy wants it to seem).

BUT lets just even per se` the ruling was fair. I dont think its hard to disagree this guy is being a massive...well...you know. Very childish in his actions.

What guy?

Fred

The man representing the Academy...way too lazy to go pick his name out LOL! Sorry my contacts are bugging me...AHHH

[Frederica]

The man representing the Academy...way too lazy to go pick his name out LOL! Sorry my contacts are bugging me...AHHH

Not to beat a dead horse and I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do disagree with you...you probably guessed that. The lawyer simply represents his client, in this case the Academy. It's the Academy's position. The legality of the issue has been decided, and rather decisively, by the jury. I don't know if you've ever sat on a jury (I'm sometimes vaguely surprised by how many people haven't, given how litigious a society we supposedly are), but one hour to make a decision like that is lightening speed. The Academy had their ducklings in a row. (Actually, given that this is the Academy, the ducklings may well have been dancing like Rockettes.)

You can look at it as analogous to a Gold or Silver Star; you can be awarded one, but you cannot sell it, because you do not own it.

I will be interested to see how the Judge rules on the other points at question, but I've learned it's better to follow these things through legal blogs or articles. Sometimes decisions swing on issues and precedents that aren't clear to a lay audience.

Fred

[misspickford9]

The man representing the Academy...way too lazy to go pick his name out LOL! Sorry my contacts are bugging me...AHHH

Not to beat a dead horse and I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do disagree with you...you probably guessed that. The lawyer simply represents his client, in this case the Academy. It's the Academy's position. The legality of the issue has been decided, and rather decisively, by the jury. I don't know if you've ever sat on a jury (I'm sometimes vaguely surprised by how many people haven't, given how litigious a society we supposedly are), but one hour to make a decision like that is lightening speed. The Academy had their ducklings in a row. (Actually, given that this is the Academy, the ducklings may well have been dancing like Rockettes.)

You can look at it as analogous to a Gold or Silver Star; you can be awarded one, but you cannot sell it, because you do not own it.

I will be interested to see how the Judge rules on the other points at question, but I've learned it's better to follow these things through legal blogs or articles. Sometimes decisions swing on issues and precedents that aren't clear to a lay audience.

Fred

Well you are definitly free to disagree with me, and I respect that you at least have an informed opinion behind it (though I still dont agree with it LOL!) That being said comments like "Oh no you cant give them to a museum you have to give them back to us" just to be well...a jerk...are a bit much thats all Im saying (and there was no ruling to that effect so its not a matter of law; they are free to keep the Oscars, just not sell them)

[silentfilm]

http://www.mydesert.com/article/2009020 ... 006/news01

Academy of Motion Pictures cuts deal on Mary Pickford Oscar sale
City News Service • February 3, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Three women have reached a tentative settlement with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on the remaining issues concerning their proposed sale of a Mary Pickford Oscar, an academy attorney said Monday.

The terms of the tentative accord are confidential and subject to approval by a probate court judge, lawyer David W. Quinto said.

“Obviously the academy is very pleased,” Quinto said. “It avoids any appeal, puts an end to the attorney's fees and gives the academy the legal precedent it was seeking.”

Defense attorney Rori Starr Silver was not immediately available for comment.

Judge Joseph Kalin had been scheduled to preside beginning Monday over the second part of the trial regarding further legal arguments in the case.

The three women inherited the Oscar in dispute, a second Pickford Oscar and a third once owned by Pickford's third husband, actor and band leader Charles “Buddy” Rogers, who was the recipient of the Academy's 1985 Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

When Buddy Rogers' last wife, Beverly Rogers, died in January 2007, the Oscars became the property of her sister, Marian D. Stahl, now 86, of Rancho Mirage, Stahl's daughter Kim Boyer, and Boyer's cousin, Virginia Patricia Casey. Boyer and Casey live in Washington state.

Stahl, Boyer and Casey were the women sued by the academy.

Pickford was among the founders of the Academy in 1927 and won the Oscar for best actress — the first for a talkie — for the 1929 film “Coquette.” She also was given the 1975 honorary Oscar for her contributions to the film industry and the development of film as an artistic medium.

The academy brought its suit against the women in Los Angeles Superior Court in August 2007, claiming it has a contractual right to buy the three Pickford-Rogers statuettes at $10 apiece if they are ever put up for sale. Both Pickford and Buddy Rogers signed receipts giving the Academy first right of refusal to the Oscars, according to the academy.

A jury deliberated for a little more than an hour before deciding in December that the women had committed anticipatory breach concerning the first Pickford Oscar, which they wanted to sell to benefit charity, as well as with a second one given to the woman once known as “America's Sweetheart.”

The women were found not liable concerning the Rogers Oscar.

Defense attorneys argued the women wanted to use money from the sale of the first Pickford Oscar only. They said their actions were in accordance with the will of a relative, who wanted the proceeds given to a specific charity.

[misspickford9]

I hope the deal is satisfactory for charity; and honestly I wonder what the point of the lawsuit was. It almost feels like the academy strictly wanted to 'teach a lesson' which is stupid when it comes to charity.

That being said I've thought up a random question in relation to heirs. Whatever happened to Gwynne Rupp? I'd assume she's passed on now but Im a little surprised she or her daughter didnt get Mary's Oscars.