Andy Warhol Farrah Fawcett Portrait Trial Ends In Ryan ONeal’s Favor

Andy Warhol Farrah Fawcett Portrait Trial Ends In Ryan ONeal’s Favor

Farrah Fawcett‘s estate planning wishes have been at the center of a number of lawsuits, as we describe in this article about Ryan O’Neal.  O’Neal was sued by the University of Texas, which claimed that he wrongfully removed the famed Andy Warhol Farrah Fawcett painting from her home after she died.  O’Neal defended himself, saying that this copy of the painting was his and he had permission to take it back after Fawcett died.  Farrah-Fawcett-Portrait-by-Andy-Warhol

The University of Texas disagreed, suing O’Neal back in 2011.  The University’s lawyers felt that, because Fawcett’s revocable living trust left all of her artwork to the University, it should be the rightful owner of the Farrah Fawcett paining, not O’Neal.  It turns out there were actually two copies of the famed portrait, and the University already received one of them.  But it sued O’Neal for the other one too.

The case proceeded to trial last month, lasting three weeks.  O’Neal called several witnesses, including former friends of Fawcett and her former caregiver, who all testified that the second copy of the painting belonged to O’Neal.  He testified that Warhol gave him the second copy, because he was the one who brokered the deal for the famous portrait to be made in the 1970’s.

Farrah Fawcett Portrait Trial: Ryan O’Neal Testifies About Andy Warhol Painting

The University countered that Fawcett said on her reality show that she was considering selling one of her two paintings, and she signed documents loaning the portraits to a museum where she listed herself as the owner.  Reportedly, there were also insurance documents supporting that Fawcett owned both copies of the portrait.

However, in the end, the jury felt — by a vote of 9 to 3 — that O’Neal really did own the painting.  O’Neal was undergoing surgery when the verdict came out, and he said that when his son called to tell him the good news, tears and blood streamed down his face.

Interestingly, shortly after the verdict, O’Neal gave an interview to the Today show, during which he said he spoke to Fawcett and she gave him permission to do the interview. He also explained how he felt that he was always the true owner, and the University was convinced to sue after an enemy of his sent 90 emails to University regents accusing O’Neal of stealing it.

O’Neal says he never will sell the Farrah Fawcett painting — which may be worth millions (experts gave differing values of the artwork at trial).  Instead, he will make sure that Redmond — the son he fathered with Fawcett — will inherit it and keep it in the family.  O’Neal says the portrait is all he has of Fawcett and treasures its sentimental value.

While spending years in litigation over a single piece of art is unusual, family fights over valuable or sentimental personal property left by a deceased loved one are far from uncommon.  Indeed, when people pass along property by gifting it to someone, there is often a fight over whether the gift was valid — especially when the gift is inconsistent with estate planning documents, like a will or trust.

It’s a good lesson to always transfer personal property of value — whether monetary or sentimental — in a manner consistent with a will or trust, and with the giver’s intent documented in writing.  That way, there won’t be confusion and fighting over who really owned it.

In this case, O’Neal was asked during the Today Show interview why Farrah Fawcett didn’t make her wishes more clear.  He responded that there was no reason for her to do so because the portrait was always his.  Considering the conflicting documents on this point, and the fact that it hung in her house — not his — when she died, this answer does not make much sense.

You can watch the O’Neal interview yourself:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What do you think?  Did the Farrah Fawcett portrait trial jury get it right?

By Danielle and Andrew Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!  For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter and Google+.

Categories: Celebrities, Estate Battles, Trusts
Tags: , , , ,
  • TruthSeeker7388 .

    Personally, I do not think the jury got it right! In fact, I wonder what is or was wrong with this jury? If you follow the facts: Farrah paid the insurance, She had it in her condo at the time of her death, all Ryan had was “hearsay” witnesses, doesn’t add up to him being the owner. Yes, Farrah should have maybe spelled out in her living trust there were 2 Warhols, but insurance documents show she had 2! I don’t understand how what is written on paper is discarded for hearsay information. What is the point of a will, trust, living trust, when your instructions are not followed. Also, during the trial it was brought out by someone with nothing to gain or lose, that she introduced Farrah and Andy and arranged the portrait as part of a 20/20 Special and that O’Neal was no where around. Happened at a party in Houston. When O’Neal was questioned by UT first, his explanation of how it came to be did nott include the “Houston Party”, but after the 20/20 woman testified by video, then O’Neal included that in his testimony when questioned by his attorney! Nothing about it in his deposition either. So, it seemed like he used that information and added it to his story!
    This jury was so off in giving O’Neal this portrait. Question Trial & Heirs: Do you think an appeal is in order? Do you think the jury got it right?

  • TruthSeeker7388 .

    Another question to Trial and Heirs: If there is an appeal – How will that work? Doesn’t the University have to show that the Judge made mistakes in order to file an appeal? Anyway, if an appeal is granted, how will it work and should the decision of the jury be overturned, would that mean another trial?? Thanks!

  • TIMMY188

    In my opinion the Jury got it right, even though there was no will that stated she owned it. It was the duty of care for the executor of the revocable trust to update the assets to reflect the intents of the owner.

  • TIMMY188

    Well, in my opinion, as long as the objections were valid, there will be an appeal, but I believe it will be upheld. This will prove to be a good lesson for all of us in estate planning.