Battle Over Hammer’s Estate Back in Court

Nearly eight years after the death of controversial oil executive and art collector Armand Hammer, the battle over his estate--and, indirectly, his image--returned Friday to a Los Angeles courtroom.

The hearing in a state appeals court downtown was the latest in a complicated case that includes, among other things, allegations that Hammer manipulated his late wife, Frances, out of her own money and schemed to hide his mistress by having the girlfriend change her name and appearance.

Frances Hammer’s niece asked the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Friday to overturn a 1994 lower court ruling that denied her claim to at least $57 million in artworks, stocks and other property. The niece, Joan Weiss, alleged that the assets were fraudulently obtained by Hammer’s estate and charitable foundation.

On the other side, attorneys for Armand Hammer’s estate and the Dallas-based foundation allege that Weiss coerced Frances Hammer into changing her will in 1988, naming Weiss as her sole heir.

Frances Hammer, a wealthy widow when she married Armand Hammer, died Dec. 16, 1989, at the age of 87. The globe-trotting chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp., Armand Hammer died a year later, at the age of 92, leaving behind other messy inheritance disputes among his own heirs, as well as claims from charities that complained he had not made good on promised donations.

Armand Hammer had a son from a previous marriage and a daughter from an out-of-wedlock relationship. Frances had no children.

Weiss is seeking a full accounting of community property from the 33-year marriage of her aunt and the oil tycoon. Those assets include paintings now held by the UCLA/Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural Center in Westwood, next door to Occidental Petroleum headquarters.

“For ordinary people, it would be hard to imagine that you would have $57 million in community property and not have an accounting,” Weiss’ attorney Hillel Chodos told the court.

Weiss contends that Armand Hammer duped his wife into signing waivers that gave up community property rights to his art collection and other holdings. But later, after learning about her husband’s long extramarital affair, Frances changed her will, the niece’s suit contends.

Daniel Petrocelli, attorney for the Armand Hammer estate and foundation, strongly denied those allegations Friday and reiterated his side’s counterclaim that Weiss was the one who wrongly manipulated Frances Hammer. The elderly aunt changed her will only after Weiss threatened to leave Los Angeles and cut all ties with her, including visits with Weiss’ children, Petrocelli said.

“The threat was the equivalent of putting a gun to her head,” he said.

A Superior Court judge, agreeing with Petrocelli’s version of events, ruled against Weiss in 1994. But Weiss appealed.

The panel of judges who heard the appeal, which also names Occidental Petroleum and the museum as defendants, gave no hints Friday of how they might rule. A decision is expected within a few weeks.

According to legal papers filed in the case, Weiss was the undisputed beneficiary of a separate $12-million trust left by her aunt and turned down an insurance company’s offer of an additional $18 million to settle her claim against the Armand Hammer estate.

Early in the nine-year case, Weiss contended that there might be $400 million involved. Chodos on Friday said the figure was at least $57 million.

One of the arguments in Weiss’ suit is that crucial witnesses were not given the opportunity to testify in the Superior Court trial. One of those potential witnesses is Pauline Gore, mother of Vice President Al Gore, who would say that her close friend, Frances, “never displayed or expressed any moroseness about her relations with Joan or Joan’s family,” according to the lawsuit.

Armand Hammer’s reputation took a serious blow with the publication in 1996 of the biography “Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer” by Edward Jay Epstein.

Although Hammer portrayed himself as a selfless philanthropist and promoter of detente between the United States and the Soviet Union, Epstein’s book described him with compelling evidence as a ruthless opportunist who bribed foreign officials for oil rights and used Occidental Petroleum as if it were his personal plaything.