THE BATTLE FOR TONY BENNETT'S ESTATE

The fight for the control of Tony Bennett's million dollar estate has The latest drama between intensified in recent daye. The 70-year-old son Danny, and his sisters unfolded when he requested more time to respond to a lawsuit filed by his sisters—a plea that was swiftly rejected by their legal team.

Antonia and Johanna, through their lawyer, firmly declined Danny's request for an extension, arguing that it would "delay the production of information to which they are entitled."

The sisters have been seeking a comprehensive accounting of the estate, but it seems their requests have gone unanswered. According to court documents Danny's attorney, who was only recently retained, cited the need for additional time. In his words:

"I am insufficiently familiar with the case to determine how best to respond to the Petition. In addition, I have planned vacation time during the last two weeks of August, as does my partner."

Despite these explanations, Antonia and Johanna's lawyer insisted that their clients are owed an accounting and would only agree to the extension if Danny provided the requested financial details within 45 days.

In the face of mounting pressure, Danny turned to the court for a decision, pleading for additional time to respond to the lawsuit.

Following the iconic singer's passing on July 21, 2023, at the age of 96, Danny was appointed as the trustee of Tony's trust—a role that has now become the center of a fierce family conflict.

In June, Antonia and Johanna reportedly accused their brother of mishandling their father's estate.

Their lawsuit states that Danny allegedly failed to provide them with the accounting of the estate's financial activities, particularly regarding the proceeds from the sale of Tony's music catalog and brand deals.

The sisters expressed their disbelief upon learning that their father's estate reportedly holds only $7 million, despite their belief that he had amassed over $100 million in earnings over the past 15 years.

Adding fuel to the fire, the lawsuit also highlighted a significant disparity in financial gifts within the family. Antonia and Johanna allege that Danny received $4.2 million in gifts from their father—an amount that far exceeds what the other three siblings have received.

The heartbreak of seeing the legendary singer's name drawn into a legal battle must be overwhelming for Susan Benedetto, who paid a moving tribute to Tony shortly after his passing in July last year.

At the time, The Blast noted that in a heartfelt statement shared on Instagram, Susan, alongside Tony's son Danny, expressed deep gratitude to all who supported him throughout his life and career.

"Thank you to all the fans, friends, and colleagues of Tony's who celebrated his life and humanity and shared their love of him and his musical legacy," the joint statement read.

Reflecting on his extraordinary journey, Susan and Danny reminded followers of Tony's humble beginnings as a singing waiter in Queens, to his final, unforgettable performances at Radio City Music Hall in 2021. "Tony delighted in performing the songs he loved and making people happy," they shared.

SOURCE

OLIVIA DEHAVILLAND AND A NEW LAWSUIT

Olivia de Havilland, who won two Oscars during Hollywood’s golden age, filed a lawsuit on Friday against FX Networks and Ryan Murphy Productions over her gossipy portrayal in the television show “Feud: Bette and Joan.”

“FX defendants misappropriated Olivia de Havilland’s name, likeness and identity without her permission and used them falsely in order to exploit their own commercial interests,” the lawsuit says. Ms. de Havilland, 101, is seeking damages for “emotional harm” and “harm to her reputation,” and is also pushing for an injunction against the use of her name and likeness.

“Feud: Bette and Joan” portrays the decades-long rivalry between Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, and is part of Mr. Murphy’s larger FX anthology series depicting feuds throughout history. Ms. de Havilland and Davis were close friends and starred in four films together, including “Hush … Hush, Sweet Charlotte.” In the series, Ms. de Havilland, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, is an important character, appearing in six episodes as a confidante to Davis and an active participant in the Davis-Crawford drama.

The lawsuit rejects both the quotes attributed to Ms. de Havilland and the overall tone of the portrayal. “Olivia de Havilland has made efforts, spent time and money, protecting her well-defined public image as one who does not engage in gossip and other unkind, ill-mannered behavior,” the lawsuit reads.

Mr. Murphy, the creator of “Feud,” told the The Hollywood Reporter in April that he did not contact de Havilland about her portrayal in the series.

“I didn’t write Olivia because I didn’t want to be disrespectful and ask her, ‘Did this happen? Did that happen? What was your take on that?’” he said.

SOURCE

TIPPI HEDREN AWARDED 1.5 MILLION

 

In her most famous role, in 1963's The Birds, Tippi Hedren was subject to attacks from violent birds (not to mention Alfred Hitchcock's ravenous appetite for blondes). Her later work was no less challenging. In 2006, she took a role in a TV show titled Fashion House, and one day in rehearsal, a gallon of water fell from the ceiling onto her head. It's speculated that the water had accumulated under the soundstage's plywood roof because a bird's nest was blocking a condensation tube in the air conditioning system. Hedren has long suffered from severe and persistent headaches.

In 2006, shortly before taking the role in Fashion House, she underwent spinal fusion surgery. The operation came as a tremendous relief. She testified it was a miracle, and once free of headaches, she was cleared to play the non-action role of a woman dying of cancer in the show.But after she was struck on the head by water while rehearsing a scene at Stu Segall Studios in San Diego, the headaches returned. She tried various remedies including chiropractic, acupuncture, physical therapy, medications, Botox injections and nerve block injections, but the headaches persisted.

In October 2006 she retained attorney Joseph Allen to file a personal injury lawsuit against the owner and lessee of the soundstage. The attorney appears to have made an error.

In March 2007, Allen filed a complaint, but shortly before the trial readiness conference, he dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. But he did so without first obtaining an agreement by the defendants to toll the statute of limitations. As a result, when the lawsuit was refiled, the defendants successfully defeated it by arguing that it came too late.

In 2009, Hedren sued her former lawyer for malpractice for all the money she reasonably could have expected to have recovered in the prior lawsuit had things gone right. A jury returned a verdict totaling $1,483,708, which included $213,400 for past lost earnings and $440,308 for future lost earnings. After a judge refused Allen's motion for a new trial, an appeal was made on the basis that the judge should have instructed the jury on superseding causation. His theory was that the jury should have had opportunity to put primary blame on Hedren's employer, Kirkwood, for allegedly failing to do anything about the water dripping onto the soundstage and for directing Hedren to work as usual.

"We disagree," writes California Appellate Judge Terry O'Rourke. "Water dripping onto a floor from a ceiling or roof would not ordinarily cause a reasonable person who does not own or control the premises to expect that a large deluge of water falling from the ceiling is imminent or even likely to occur. …

Accordingly, Kirkwood's continuing to rehearse and film scenes on the soundstage despite the dripping water did not constitute conduct that was so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable." The appellate judge also rejects Allen's arguments that the trial judge erred by refusing to issue a comparative fault instruction to the jury about how Hedren's own negligence contributed to her harm. The attorney said that the actress had performed two "stage falls" even though her doctor had instructed her not to do action sequences, that she didn't see the doctor until 55 days after the accident and that she continued to campaign for her wildlife preservation charity at "a hectic pace" even after her doctor told her to slow down. But there's "insufficient evidence," agrees the appeals court. The appellate ruling also goes into the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict, and while we won't address everything, of interest might be the testimony about Hedren's lost future earnings.

Hedren's talent agent Carlyne Grager was put on the witness stand. According to the judge, she testified that her talent agency "specializes in obtaining work for 'legends' — i.e., senior citizen actors "who are names, who have been stars' — and that the market for such actors in Hollywood had grown substantially in the last few years and would continue for the next 10 years." Grager also spoke about roles Hedren was able to take (Jayne Mansfield's Car produced by Billy Bob Thornton) and roles she was offered and didn't take (a television series produced by and starring Betty White), and the salary range (between $2,500 to $25,000 a day) for actors of Hedren's caliber. Based upon that testimony, an economist calculated the actress's lost income —subtracting, of course, for the agent's take.

Allen complained that Grager has no expertise in medicine or disability, and that there was no basis for using television work in determining damages for a film actress, but an appeals court finds the admissibility of evidence within the trial court's discretion.The appeals court also weighs the totality of the record, including that "Hedren has suffered daily from severe headaches that limit her ability to take acting work," and concludes, "We cannot say the award of noneconomic damages is so disproportionate to the evidence that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion or prejudice on the part of the jury."

SOURCE