Tales of Wealth and Debauchery at Mudd Trial : Litigation: Palimony suit against estate of multimillionaire offers titillating testimony

“Henry’s gone and his women are slinging Mudd at each other in a wild Mudd-wrestle for his fortune!” screamed “Hard Copy.”

“Multimillionaire businessman Henry Mudd maintained a harem of seven mistresses, one for every day of the week,” snickered the Daily Telegraph of London.

And reporter Peter McDonald of the London Evening Standard went so far as to compare the tales of wealth and debauchery emerging in Division 38 of Los Angeles Superior Court to the antics of the British Royal Family. “This story has everything--sex, money, power. It would grab anybody’s attention.”

So it has.

The trial of a $5-million palimony suit filed against the estate of the founder of Harvey Mudd College by one of his mistresses has proved an irresistible delectation for everyone from television reporters and photographers who chase the ex-mistresses down courthouse halls with bright lights and microphones, to just-plain-curious folks looking for a bit of salacious gossip. Attorneys in other courtrooms take a break to listen in on the lurid testimony while one woman sits writing a screenplay on her portable computer.

The carnival-like atmosphere during the last two weeks of trial has finally gotten to the uniformed bailiffs, one of whom said wistfully that he wished he could paint his boots red, click his heels and return to Kansas. Testimony is scheduled to resume today.

This blitzkrieg of interest has been generated by a palimony suit filed by Eleanor (Lorraine) Oliver, who says that Mudd, 37 years her senior, showered her with lavish gifts and treated her to exotic international trips during a 13-year relationship.

Oliver, 41, claims she had an agreement with Mudd to provide him wife-like companionship. In return, she says, he agreed to set up trusts giving her lifetime support and allowing her to stay in a $600,000 house in Studio City.

Her suit contends that Mudd reneged on the contract after he married Vanessa Mudd in 1990, ended his relationship with Oliver, stopped paying her $8,400 a month in support and revoked Oliver’s trusts. Mudd died several months later at age 77 and the executors became defendants in the suit.

But the executors--Mudd’s widow, Vanessa, his accountant, Seymour Bond, and First Interstate Bank--deny that a contract ever existed.

They contend that Mudd’s relationship with Oliver was primarily sex-for-pay. They also say Oliver gave up any inheritance rights when she ended the relationship by filing the palimony suit against Mudd after his marriage.

Oliver, Vanessa Mudd and three other former mistresses have taken the witness stand and laid bare Mudd’s love life.

The women said Mudd generally dated each mistress twice a week, alternated partners nightly on group vacations and even invited the other mistresses to attend his wedding. Indeed, his widow was a former mistress.

“This court is well aware this is not the typical kind of case that comes into court,” Judge Florence T. Pickard said at one point.

Apparently anticipating media interest in the atypical case, Pickard banned attorneys and witnesses from speaking about the case and ordered photographers to stay 20 feet away from witnesses in the courtroom.

Some felt besieged by the media anyway. “Could you keep the press out of my face?” Vanessa Mudd asked of Oliver’s attorney, famed divorce lawyer Marvin Mitchelson.

And when Oliver’s ex-husband, Vincent, was called to testify that the couple had an “open relationship,” he objected to the television show “Inside Edition” videotaping in the courtroom.

Pickard banned the television camera crew, saying in a written order that they were of the “expose type” of show, then reversed herself three days later.

Outside the courtroom, reporters following the case set up their equipment on a bench and watch the testimony on a monitor in the hall. During breaks, television crews bound down the hall with Oliver and Mitchelson, gathering footage.

“Inside Edition” plans to air its version of the story this week. “Hard Copy” has hit the airwaves, describing Mudd’s “harem of women worthy of a Middle-Eastern sultan.”

The episode showed scenes from Harvey Mudd College, which Mudd helped found in Claremont in 1955. “The undergrads had no way of knowing as they filed past Mudd’s somber statue that their school’s benefactor was more interested in women’s bodies than in books,” said the narrator.

Mitchelson’s office has been overwhelmed with requests from Hollywood production companies, television talk shows and European magazines. Larry Yelen, associate producer at the nationally syndicated “Montel Williams Show,” said he is interested in booking Oliver or the other mistresses.

“I think there will always be interest in the rich and powerful and what goes on behind those doors even when it’s years later, especially when it comes to matters relating to sexual involvement,” he said.

Many people said that they are less interested in learning about Mudd’s life than watching Mitchelson’s style.

Tashi Grady routinely attends the trial to gather information for a television movie she is writing on the lawyer’s life called “The Mitchelson Files.” The independent writer, who also is writing a play about the life of Shakespeare, said she has been attending Mitchelson’s cases for the past five years.

“It’s a journey of a hero,” she said. “He’s pioneering women’s rights and he’s a very controversial figure because the truth is always controversial.”

Attorney William D. Chapman said he and his partner started sitting in on the trial after they saw Mitchelson in the courthouse during lunch. “We’re mainly here because everyone’s heard of Marvin Mitchelson,” Chapman said.

Others sprinkled through the audience have a more personal involvement. Oliver and Vanessa Mudd, often joined by the husband of another former mistress, sit on opposite sides of the courtroom, ignoring each other.

A woman who sang at Mudd’s annual Christmas parties said she was there out of curiosity.

“I just think it’s fascinating because I knew the man,” she said.

But, she added quickly, “I didn’t know him intimately.”