TMZ/NYPost reports: Frank Miller sues Lynn Varley for illegally hiding prelim sketches and selling them 2 2

[Brian Peck]

Has anyone heard about this? No idea if this is true (considering the source) and want to reach out and hear from those who have information on this. 

 

"Frank claims Lynn Varley's illegally holding onto a slew of sketches he drew as references for the final illustrations for his comics and graphic novels.

In docs, he claims one of Varley's reps kept Miller's sketches in a binder under a table at this year's Comic-Con in San Diego. Miller claims when a potential buyer would ask about the sketches, the rep would pull out a separate binder from under the vendor's table."

 

https://www.tmz.com/2019/11/18/comic-book-artist-frank-miller-sues-ex-wife-sketches/?fbclid=IwAR0rxCYSwDrXDTtVqYfPSW0u1V7RKAcwHusv0ZIQApphLvGLi9YHDRYJJl0

 

Update its also being covered by the NYPost

https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/comics-legend-frank-miller-claims-ex-wife-stole-rough-sketches-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR2ZszFY3gnZ3SQsmDtcOknjQ1taq9PCRFMqxxbiigW5zpXfID5LDPcVv6Y

Edited November 19, 2019 by Brian Peck

[aokartman]

wth, ffs, I just clicked on a link in a discussion forum about Frank Miller and his legal and marital troubles?  smh

[vodou]

Valid topic for this original art sub-board: it's involves the art and potential clawbacks from buyers if Miller ends up "winning" and doesn't want cash settlement. No doubt Mitch knows much better than any of us as he's been taking Lynn's holdings as consignment (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) for a while now. He may or may not be able to (or wish to either) share while the thing is still active though. Thanks for posting Brian. If nothing else, nobody should be buying any potentially 'contested' Frank Miller art that doesn't have direct provenance back to Frank Miller (not Lynn, etc), until things settle down.

[ThothAmon]

Other people’s marriages are a language I don’t speak. 

[grapeape]

This is potentially troublesome for buyers who paid for sketches from Lynn. Maybe not directly as this will take time to sort out the legal status of that binder.

Years from now any buyers looking to sell that art risk Frankie swooping down with a cease and desist. Nightmare. I would be angry and scared if I bought a sketch.

only the underground swap or sale of that art would avoid detection. Our field of interest certainly has it’s problematic ingredients. As we watched the recent Neal Adams attempts to “authenticate” art and the past bitter claims of theft, a few years prior the auction houses and Kirby, now this.

I hope they work out something and play nice. It’s easy to say, “I’m with Frank that’s his art Blah Blah Blah.” 
The Thing is this now defunct marriage was once a partnership. Is this a case of sour grapes?

Finally I made a big mistake reading some of the comments on that TMZ link.

Overwhelmingly the main concern of those who commented was the condition of Franks teeth. One wondered about his nose and whether or not he could properly drink out of a glass.

Finally and sadly one commenter essentially summed up that the artist can’t be that big of deal because they had never heard of Frank.

So what did we learn?

Buying art that is now contested is heartburn for the collector. The legal decision if it goes in Franks favor will put Lynn and some buyers in a tough position. ( I’m guessing these items will come to auction jointly with proceeds split between the two)

Finally dental care is extremely important.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by grapeape

[vodou]

6 minutes ago, grapeape said:

I hope they work out something and play nice. It’s easy to say, “I’m with Frank that’s his art Blah Blah Blah.” 
The Thing is this now defunct marriage was once a partnership. Is this a case of sour grapes?

Evidently this binder is an marital asset that either was identified during divorce proceedings but was not surrendered or was never identified to begin with (intentionally or an oversight). Getting to the bottom of that will clear a lot of things up, then it's just a matter of deciding who actually owns it (by the terms of divorce) and how to balance the scale, if at all (maybe it's Lynn's anyway?)

[grapeape]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Evidently this binder is an marital asset that either was identified during divorce proceedings but was not surrendered or was never identified to begin with (intentionally or an oversight). Getting to the bottom of that will clear a lot of things up, then it's just a matter of deciding who actually owns it (by the terms of divorce) and how to balance the scale, if at all (maybe it's Lynn's anyway?)

Yeah Vodou normally I would not be interested at all in Frank and Lynn's personal history. That being said, how ever  this plays out could be an eye opener for collectors. I never want to buy art and find out later there are potential legal ramifications or challenges to my ownership. I'm leaning towards my gut feeling that Lynn is the owner. Mounting legal fees and fear of the unknown( legal decision) I suspect will lead to an "amicable" sharing of the art. Lynn has more to lose if it's decided the art belonged to Frank.

The X factor. How bad do these two people resent each other? It only takes one of the two to insist on cutting the baby in half.(My King Solomon reference for the day). 

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, grapeape said:

This is potentially troublesome for buyers who paid for sketches from Lynn. Maybe not directly as this will take time to sort out the legal status of that binder.

Years from now any buyers looking to sell that art risk Frankie swooping down with a cease and desist. Nightmare. I would be angry and scared if I bought a sketch.

only the underground swap or sale of that art would avoid detection. Our field of interest certainly has it’s problematic ingredients. As we watched the recent Neal Adams attempts to “authenticate” art and the past bitter claims of theft, a few years prior the auction houses and Kirby, now this.

I hope they work out something and play nice. It’s easy to say, “I’m with Frank that’s his art Blah Blah Blah.” 
The Thing is this now defunct marriage was once a partnership. Is this a case of sour grapes?

Finally I made a big mistake reading some of the comments on that TMZ link.

Overwhelmingly the main concern of those who commented was the condition of Franks teeth. One wondered about his nose and whether or not he could properly drink out of a glass.

Finally and sadly one commenter essentially summed up that the artist can’t be that big of deal because they had never heard of Frank.

So what did we learn?

Buying art that is now contested is heartburn for the collector. The legal decision if it goes in Franks favor will put Lynn and some buyers in a tough position. ( I’m guessing these items will come to auction jointly with proceeds split between the two)

Finally dental care is extremely important.

 

I got chastised by some of the old timers for pointing out the rather unsavory means by which a lot of early Marvel art reached the market. Was treated like I pee’d in the punch bowl. This hobby has a seedy underbelly. 

[revat]

To anyone who may have bought ANY Frank Miller art from ANYONE, you should (or at least I would) ASAP document and retain anything and everything related to your purchase, including but not limited to:  pictures, tickets from events, receipts, check copies, contracts, certifications/verifications, correspondence, texts, emails, tax filings, insurance filings, witness statements, etc.  The timing and seller of your purchase might be an issue if there are any issues with selling or provenance in the future.

[grapeape]

13 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I got chastised by some of the old timers for pointing out the rather unsavory means by which a lot of early Marvel art reached the market. Was treated like I pee’d in the punch bowl. This hobby has a seedy underbelly. 

I hear you: I do. When I started collecting I was 100% on the side of artists on everything. I worried about how artists didn’t have art returned to them. I worried about where the art went? In 1996 all I kept hearing was “thrown away” “destroyed” “not meant to be saved other than reuse in producing another comic.
Then magically many thought to be gone forever pieces started popping up everywhere. Those around long enough recognize the connection of those art pieces to people In our hobby be they dealer or collector.

I do see a collectors side though. With out our crazed desire for these pieces their would be a minute group of nerds exchanging portfolios at cons and the stink of money an afterthought.

With the explosion of values there’s potential unethical pitfalls we all should consider. Provenance is big for me. 

When I can I prefer to buy directly from an artist or their rep. 
 

Fine art and comic art. Love it but also aware how much unethical motivations fuel behaviors. Money changes everything. 

[aokartman]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

Valid topic for this original art sub-board: it's involves the art and potential clawbacks from buyers if Miller ends up "winning" and doesn't want cash settlement. No doubt Mitch knows much better than any of us as he's been taking Lynn's holdings as consignment (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) for a while now. He may or may not be able to (or wish to either) share while the thing is still active though. Thanks for posting Brian. If nothing else, nobody should be buying any potentially 'contested' Frank Miller art that doesn't have direct provenance back to Frank Miller (not Lynn, etc), until things settle down.

Noted for the initial strong connection to this particular forum!

Mostly because new collectors deserve occasional reminders about the importance of provenance.

The danger is the negative influence of gossip.

Cat out of the bag on this one, scrambling around the room looking for some precious upholstery to scratch on!

David

 

[Mephisto]

I see all the Varley art has been removed from Graphic Collectibles.

[PhilipB2k17]

53 minutes ago, aokartman said:

Noted for the initial strong connection to this particular forum!

Mostly because new collectors deserve occasional reminders about the importance of provenance.

The danger is the negative influence of gossip.

Cat out of the bag on this one, scrambling around the room looking for some precious upholstery to scratch on!

David

 

Mitch was one of the old timers who jumped on me for mentioning the hinky way early Marvel art “reached the market.” Don’t know if he’s involved in the Varley stuff or not, though. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

One of the reasons I mostly buy art directly from an artist or his or her rep is to avoid this kind of thing. 

[revat]

29 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

One of the reasons I mostly buy art directly from an artist or his or her rep is to avoid this kind of thing. 

I think that’s generally smart, but in this case I’m not sure it would automatically insulate you from all potential issues.  

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, vodou said:

Evidently this binder is an marital asset that either was identified during divorce proceedings but was not surrendered or was never identified to begin with (intentionally or an oversight). Getting to the bottom of that will clear a lot of things up, then it's just a matter of deciding who actually owns it (by the terms of divorce) and how to balance the scale, if at all (maybe it's Lynn's anyway?)

What I’m wondering is why the existence of roughs wasn’t mentioned in marital disclosure forms. If they were mentioned by Frank, she could be in trouble. If they weren’t mentioned, she could still be in trouble, but why were they left out?