lack of class or what?
By TheRealDawn
@dawnald (85146)
Shingle Springs, California
July 18, 2010 12:17am CST
I read this in this morning's paper:
http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0716/Lucille-Ball-auction-of-love-letters-to-occur-after-nasty-legal-battle
Lucille Ball's ex remarried after her death and his widow is auctioning off some of her belongings, some of her awards and her love letters to him. Lucille's daughter Lucy is trying to get those items back, but would have to post a $250,000 bond to get a restraining order. She says she can't afford to do that, so it looks as if her mother's items will be lost to her.
Her step-father's widow may or may not have a legal right to those items, I don't know, but don't you think it shows a lack of sensitivity and class, and possibly greed, to be selling those items. They should go to Ms. Ball's children just because it's the right thing to do.
7 people like this
18 responses
@much2say (55616)
• Los Angeles, California
18 Jul 10
Lack of class is definitely right. All that private stuff rightfully belongs to the family - star or no star. It's insensitive of that greedy widow to try to sell these items - boooooo on her. I'd have to wonder what her motive is . . . is it really the money, or did she have something against her late husband being married to Lucille even though it was the past, like some weird jealousy thing? I don't understand about the bond - why so high - and why did the judge do that?
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
18 Jul 10
I remember the studio costing lots of money to run, that they were in a constant struggle between good runs of luck and bad breaks that kept draining the finances dry.
Who do you think got all the money from the elite? They spent some frivolously but for the most part the majority of the capital of their estate went where?
I will bet that I can name a few rotten pockets of the hands that fleeced their clients.
Let's start with an obvious one, say the courts?
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
I suppose the bond had something to do with the value of the items.
I'd be furious if it were my mom's letters. But I'd also (if I knew they existed) make sure I got hold of them, if possible, long before it came to this.
@gabs8513 (48686)
• United Kingdom
18 Jul 10
Well I would have thought that she had no right to sell them at all
It is not hers to sell whether she is married to the Step Father or not, it does not give her the right to go selling things that belong to the Daughter
Why is no one helping the Girl to stop this evil Woman selling the Things that belonged to her Mother, there has to be a Law on it
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
18 Jul 10
Everyone should have a boat load of cash on hand for a rainy day...
Of course many of us live just above the poverty level if you count in the needed loans to be repaid so that we can have property and the luxury of a roof over our heads along with a few possessions...
The haves vs. the have not...
A fine example of eliteism...
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
It seems the law is somewhat on the side of the daughter since the judge is allowing her to get a restraining order, but $250,000, sheesh...
@SomeCowgirl (32191)
• United States
18 Jul 10
It seems like this woman thinks that just because Lucille Ball was famous the things she had doesn't matter, and shouldn't remain in the family. The daughter shouldn't even have to pay a bond to get a restraining order as the way I see it she is the widow of the man who married Lucille, if that make sense, and is no way related to Lucille.
1 person likes this
@SomeCowgirl (32191)
• United States
19 Jul 10
hmm true, but the daughter should still have the rights to do as she wishes with them.
@celticeagle (167025)
• Boise, Idaho
20 Jul 10
MONEY is where it is at for so many people. Their scruples, values and character go right out the window when they see the $$$$ signs involved in these issues. Wish Lucy could get these items. Maybe some benefactor will come forward who has the money like the one that saved the HOLLYWOOD sign and sancuary there in California not too long ago.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
20 Jul 10
Oh I missed that. If I still lived in the LA area, I'd probably have read about it...
@paula27661 (15811)
• Australia
19 Jul 10
That is a sad situation. It’s just plain greedy isn’t it? I don’t know whether some people have a conscience at all...It is such a shame that Ms Ball’s daughter can’t obtain all those things which belonged to her mother. I hope that this greedy step mother may be legally blocked somehow, it’s wrong...These items have a sentimental value to the family and, as per usual money gets in the way...
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 Jul 10
Of course (says my cynical self), if the daughter turns around and sells the stuff to the highest bidder, I won't feel quite so sorry for her. But still, the stuff belongs with her and her brother, not the step-father's widow.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
21 Jul 10
They probably would if they could get enough money for them!
@cloudwatcher (6861)
• Australia
18 Jul 10
While the letters may make interesting reading for any of their fans, why would anyone (a stranger) want to BUY the letters? The fact that she is trying to sell them speaks volumes about her character.
Let's just hope that no one bids on them and that they are returned to the children.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 Jul 10
The trophys are one thing, they really belong in a museum, but love letters? I agree, should go to the children and they can decide whether to keep them, burn them or what.
@scarlet_woman (23463)
• United States
18 Jul 10
that's exactly why you should burn such letters after you read them.
it's a definete lack of class.but unfortunetly,celebrity means $,especially
with being able to pry into their personal life like that.
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
Yeah well they may have meant something to him, but I can't imagine that they mean anything to her other than dollar signs.
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
19 Jul 10
That is horrible and just plain greedy and heartless. I would more understand her cashing in on this stuff if it fell into her hands and there were no children or immediate family involved. Then it would be...lucky her. You should not need a court of law to tell you what is right here. Of course those items should be her daughters. She probably did not get them as part of the estate because her husband had them and who knows...maybe she did not even know of them at the time. It doesn't matter...what is right is right.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 Jul 10
Yup, morality trumps legality in this situation.
@tamarafireheart (15384)
•
18 Jul 10
Hi dawn,
She has not rights to it and she is stealing those items, what is the law there? because in this country you can do something about them and can take her to court.
Tamara
1 person likes this
@cynthiann (18602)
• Jamaica
18 Jul 10
Of course they should go to the children. This is disgusting and horrible, manipulative and just plain greedy
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
Yeah and bad, rotten, immoral, not nice, and mean. :-)
Seriously, what motive could she possibly have other than money? I can't think of one...
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
18 Jul 10
I agree dawn! Those items should be passed down to her children. Oh that hubby should have left a will. That's the kind of thing that happens when people don't put their requests in writing. I would be furious if it were my family's past being auctioned off. Such a shame.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
yeah he should have left a will, then again maybe her children treated him badly and he didn't care to be respectful toward them, who knows?
@mario_stevens (6971)
• Malaysia
18 Jul 10
it may be a real lack of sensitivity and even an extreme lack of class...but then, i'm just basing my opinion on that media report 
i for one wouldn't want my personal letters to be out in public...no matter how big a public figure i may become...in the far distant future.
i for one wouldn't want my personal letters to be out in public...no matter how big a public figure i may become...in the far distant future.1 person likes this
@GardenGerty (160677)
• United States
19 Jul 10
I am sure we most all agree with you on this one. I just do not think you can change some people. They are money hungry gougers to the depths.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
18 Jul 10
That's so sad, dawn. It's greed...pure greed...and it's ugly. Those items rightfully belong to Lucille Ball's children and this woman should not be able to sell them.
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
I'm sure she wasn't doing it for "I Love Lucy"... :D
@marguicha (223050)
• Chile
18 Jul 10
I absolutly agree with you, Dawn. But I suppose that the woman wants money: it´s a powerful incentive to do all sorts of nasty things. Lucille Ball´s ex should have burned those letters after he remarried. There are some things that are between two people.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
He should have either burned them or willed them to her children. And his widow should have had more class than to sell them.
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
18 Jul 10
I'm sure it is. If she just wanted to get rid of them, she could have given them to the children or burned them...
