“We would like the court to rule that the 1983 Agreement violates the statute and therefore cannot prevent the heirs from exercising their termination rights,” Dowd said.

The brothers’ mother was the author’s second wife, Gwyndolyn Conger. In the same case, a judge earlier ruled the couple breached a contract between Kaffaga’s late mother and Thomas Steinbeck and his late brother, John Steinbeck IV. Gail Steinbeck was not allowed to fully address the issue in court, he said. “The problem with the 1983 agreement is that it violates the statute by basically binding up, or restricting, Thom’s ability to exercise his termination rights for ‘The Grapes of Wrath,’” Dowd told The Associated Press. He said Steinbeck was fully within his right to do so, under the 1976 “termination rights” clause. She also said Gail Steinbeck learned of projects and threatened moviemakers, saying she and her husband had legal rights to the work.ĭowd said Thomas Steinbeck, who died in 2016, conveyed his intention to exercise those rights, prompting Kaffaga to claim the contract breach. Kaffaga had contended Thomas Steinbeck secretly signed a $650,000 deal with DreamWorks to be an executive producer on a film remake of “The Grapes of Wrath,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that starred Henry Fonda on the silver screen and won two Oscars. She said the deals instead fell apart over the years.

Kaffaga - executor for the estate of her mother, Elaine Steinbeck, the author’s widow and third wife - had alleged that long-running litigation over the author’s estate prevented her from making the most of his copyrights at a time when marquee names such as Steven Spielberg and Jennifer Lawrence were interested in bringing masterpieces, “The Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden,” back to the screen. The appeal also disputes the award handed up by the jury, maintaining it was not supported by “substantial evidence.” Kaffaga had sued her stepbrother, his widow, Gail, and their company.Īttorney Matthew Dowd, representing the Thomas Steinbeck estate, said part of the appeal contends the 1983 agreement was in violation of a 1976 change to copyright law that gave artists or their blood relatives the right to terminate copyright deals. It was up to the Los Angeles jury to decide if Thomas and Gail Steinbeck interfered with deals and should pay up.

Steinbeck eden