Jurors Reject Mudd Palimony Suit : Litigation: The plaintiff, one of seven former mistresses of the late multimillionaire, is expected to appeal.

A Superior Court jury Wednesday rejected a palimony suit brought against the estate of the late multimillionaire Henry T. Mudd by one of his seven mistresses, denying the woman who asked for $5 million a single cent in compensation.

Eleanor (Lorraine) Oliver, 41, who had a 13-year affair with Mudd before suing him months before his death in 1990, said that she was “obviously very disappointed.

“It’s been 2 1/2 years of hell,” Oliver said, her eyes brimming with tears. “The heart palpitations were immense. Right now, I feel drained.”

Oliver’s attorney, Marvin Mitchelson, said he would file a motion for a new trial or appeal the case. Oliver had asked for $4.2 million palimony, a $600,000 house in Studio City and an unspecified amount in damages for emotional distress.

Mudd’s widow Vanessa--a former mistress who married Mudd eight months before his death--said she was pleased that the money Oliver asked for would now benefit students at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, the school Henry Mudd co-founded in his father’s name in 1955.

“This is what I expected, but I’m certainly relieved,” said Mudd, clutching a wedding picture of herself and Henry Mudd outside the courtroom.

“Greed will not prevail.”

The verdict capped three weeks of testimony in the trial that uncovered Mudd’s life layer by layer, revealing that he had affairs with as many as seven women at once and attracting international interest from tabloid-type publications and television shows. Witnesses testified that Mudd’s mistresses knew each other, that Mudd vacationed with more than one woman at a time and that he invited the women to his Reno nuptials with Vanessa.

Oliver claimed in her lawsuit that she agreed to provide Mudd wife-like companionship. In return, she said, he agreed to set up trust funds that would support her for life and let her remain in the Studio City house he bought for her to live in.

She contended that he reneged on the agreement after he married Vanessa Mudd in 1990. He subsequently halted Oliver’s $8,400-a-month allowance and revoked her trusts. After he died months later at age 76, the executors of his estate evicted Oliver from the house.

The executors, who became the defendants in the suit after Mudd’s death, denied that a contract existed and contended that Oliver’s relationship with Mudd was based primarily on sex for pay.

Jamie Broder, an attorney for the executors, also argued that Oliver gave up any inheritance rights when she ended the relationship by hiring Mitchelson to seek a settlement against Mudd.

Two mistresses who had previously hired Mitchelson to sue Mudd in 1985 and 1986 had reached out-of-court settlements with Mudd.

Broder’s argument apparently swayed jurors.

While they unanimously found that Mudd and Oliver had a contract that was based on more than sex for pay, the jury voted 10 to 2 that Oliver did not live up to the terms of the agreement. That vote was sufficient to reject Oliver’s claim because agreement among at least nine jurors--instead of a unanimous jury--is needed to reach a verdict in a civil trial.

Some jurors said Oliver failed to remain Mudd’s friend until his death by going to an attorney after an argument with Mudd rather than trying to patch things up.

“She was not his friend at the end,” said juror Luchus Mack, 36, of Lynwood. “If she would have visited him at the hospital just once, or called, that would have proved she was interested. But she didn’t do anything.”

Not that the decision was clear-cut.

The jury was hung up for days on whether Oliver fulfilled the contract, and at one point seven members believed she had, said juror Jennifer DeFoor. Battles over the issue grew so intense, she said, that the jury feared their deliberations could be heard in the adjoining courtroom.

“There was yelling and screaming the whole time,” DeFoor said.

DeFoor, who said she wanted to give Oliver $2 million and the house, said she originally believed Oliver had broken the contract only because she was distressed by Mudd’s marriage to Vanessa and a custody battle with Oliver’s ex-husband.

But when she learned that legally she had to disregard those factors, she said, she voted against Oliver.

Juror Andrea Ross of Carson was one of two holdouts who believed Oliver fulfilled the contract and that Mudd broke it by telling Oliver at one point that he wanted to “divorce” her.

“I’ve been fighting with these people since Monday on this one point because I felt strongly she did what she had to,” Ross said. “I truly feel for Miss Oliver and I do feel she deserved something.”

Other jurors said they might have awarded Oliver some money had they not been following a special verdict form agreed upon by both sides. Jurors had to vote on each condition that would constitute a breach of contract before they could proceed to the next condition on the list. Because they found that Oliver did not comply with a contract, they never reached questions asking whether Oliver should be awarded any money.

Some jurors, however, were perfectly content with the outcome.

“I didn’t think she deserved anything,” said Gabriel Vicario, 35, of Rosemead. “I think she was already compensated for her 13 years in the relationship.”