Three Movie Museums Vying for Share of Film Buff’s Estate : Film Buff’s Dream Gets Star Billing in Probate Controversy

‘I thought it was a waste of time and money, but he always had a dream that someday he would have a museum of his own.’

--Roy Rothery, executor

Albert Rosenfelder loved the movies.

He loved them so much that he sometimes watched a triple feature during the day, then went to a studio preview at night. He talked about the movies, collected stars’ pictures and autographs and commissioned an artist to paint portraits of each year’s Oscar winners.

When a friend asked him why he spent so much time sitting in the dark, Rosenfelder bristled. Everyone should love the movies, he said.

So when he died last January at age 78, he willed the bulk of his estate to “Hollywood . . . for the purpose of a movie museum.”

Three Rivals Claim to Be Heirs

Meant as a final tribute to a world he loved, his $260,000-estate--including property, cash and memorabilia--has become the centerpiece in a dispute among backers of three rival film museums who claim that they are the rightful heirs. Three second cousins from the Midwest, the state attorney general’s office and officials in the city and county of Los Angeles also have their own ideas about where the estate should go.

And Roy Rothery, executor of Rosenfelder’s estate, said Rosenfelder wanted his money to go toward his own dream museum, since he often talked of converting one of his three Hollywood bungalows into a shrine for his mementos.

A probate hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 15 in Pasadena, so a judge will decide the fate of Rosenfelder’s dream.

The one-page, hand-written will is dated May 30, 1982, and leaves the bulk of the estate to “a movie museum.” It provides no further details except to call for the donation of a “valuable collection of 164 oil paintings and 20 pastels of movie stars, sheet music, stills, photos, statues and memorabilia for this building.”

“I wish I had read the will before he died because I would have told him to rewrite it. . . . He just wasn’t specific enough,” said Rothery, a long-time movie-going pal.

Rothery’s lawyer, Jean Louise Webster, sent letters to 12 parties, including the museums, in which she said she had petitioned the court to interpret Rosenfelder’s intentions. “What we have said to the court is, ‘We don’t know what the will means, please tell us,’ ” Webster said.

Funds Have Been the Problem

Establishing a major film museum has long been a goal of Hollywood civic leaders, but fund-raising has been a major roadblock. The Rosenfelder bequest would be a tremendous boost for any of the three museums, two of which are open. The third is still on the drawing board.

Representatives of each museum said they are sure Rosenfelder would have wanted the money to go to them.

The Hollywood Exposition and Museum is a pet project of state Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who last year helped to secure $140,000 in state money to study potential sites and sources of memorabilia for a museum for the film, recording, radio and television industries.

A Roberti bill making its way through the Legislature would provide $780,000 to design a building and exhibits and to establish a fund-raising committee.

Exposition backers will have to raise most of the estimated cost of $54 million from private sources, according to Hollywood Chamber of Commerce President Bill Welsh, a backer.

Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Woo, a former Roberti aide, also supports the Expo, as it is called. “I think it would be a very good focal point for Hollywood,” Woo said. “It is the largest (of the three museums) and the idea is that it would be a centrally located Smithsonian-type institution.”

Marian Gibbons, however, says Rosenfelder wanted his money to go to Hollywood Heritage, the preservationist group that operates the Hollywood Studio Museum near the Hollywood Bowl. Gibbons, the group’s president, said Rosenfelder worked as a volunteer when Hollywood Heritage restored the old DeMille Barn, where the first feature-length film was shot in 1913. “I think he had the barn project in mind when he left the money,” Gibbons said. The barn houses the Hollywood Studio Museum.

“Why in the world would he have left the money to an entity that hadn’t even been thought of yet, like any of the other museums that have been suggested?” Gibbons asked.

The third contender, the Hollywood Museum, opened 15 months ago on Hollywood Boulevard near Mann’s Chinese Theatre. A claim filed by the owners said the museum “appears to be the intended entity” in the will because it is the “only presently operating museum on the history of movie making.”

But attendance at the privately owned museum has been poor and owners last month filed for bankruptcy, declaring debts of $250,000. They were not available for comment this week.

Assistant City Atty. Norman Roberts said he will argue that the money should go to the Expo, which is a joint venture of the city and the state. And the county, which rents the barn property to Hollywood Heritage, has indicated that it will argue that the money was intended for that project. The attorney general’s office has suggested that a charitable group should run the museum.

“I wish we could all be in agreement what the best use of the money is,” Woo said. “The county never contacted me.”

Executor Rothery said Rosenfelder did not intend the money to go to any of the museums, but envisioned a museum of his own that would take advantage of his collection.

“I thought it was a waste of time and a waste of money,” Rothery said, “but he always had a dream that someday he would have a museum of his own.” But Rothery said the $260,000 is not enough to start a museum. He thinks the money should go to Marie Lembike, Rosenfelder’s second cousin from Cleveland. Lembike was the only relative close to Rosenfelder, Rothery said. “Why should all the money go to strangers?” he asked. “She is a relative and I think she should come in on it somehow.”

Lembike’s lawyer, Mel Pierovich of Glendale, also said the money should go to Lembike and her two brothers. “I’m going to argue that the will is improperly made,” Pierovich said. The money “should be distributed as if he died without a will. . . . That means each (of the second cousins) would get a third. . . .

“But on the other hand, other relatives might surface who might be entitled to some of it.”

Rosenfelder, a lifelong bachelor, ran a Cleveland hobby shop and dance studio which he sold after World War II, before he moved to Los Angeles. He lived the last 40 years of his life in his small Hollywood bungalow, financing his quiet existence with savings, Social Security and rent from his two neighboring bungalows. Most of his estate’s value comes from his bungalows and savings accounts.

Friends said Rosenfelder lived anonymously, despite his occasional attempts to contact movie personalities.

Jeanne Shepard, his tenant and friend of 35 years, said he liked to stay out most of the day, working for volunteer groups such as the Hollywood Happy Seniors. When he got home, he would immediately turn on the television or telephone friends. “He put up a good front,” Shepard said, “but I don’t think he ever was happy. He couldn’t be by himself.”

Shepard, who was willed $1,000, said she knew Rosenfelder very well, yet never understood why he sometimes sat through four feature films in a day.

“It was some kind of compulsion, wasn’t it? He couldn’t understand why anybody wasn’t a movie fan. And I never told him that I had just a slight interest in the movies.”

She guessed that he lived vicariously through movie stars, after his own attempts at acting failed.

“He was a very handsome man. He even looked a little bit like Valentino. He went to acting school for awhile but he realized it wasn’t for him. He was just petrified. . . . He was a spectator, he found that out after about a month of training.”

But, Shepard said, the ultimate movie fan was not jealous of the stars.

“There was no envy there. He just loved them.”