Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Bob Ross’s trust amendment named his half-brother Jimmie Cox to receive 51% and his son, Steve Ross, 49% of specified intellectual-property interests. But that was the trust’s intended allocation, not proof that either man ultimately inherited Bob Ross’s commercial name-and-likeness rights: a federal court ruled in 2019 that the trust could not pass rights Ross had already invested in Bob Ross Inc. The available sources do not establish the full distribution of Ross’s personal estate or the current whereabouts of every family member.
Who was named in Bob Ross’s trust?
Bob Ross created a trust and amended it in 1995. The amendment described a 51% interest for his half-brother Jimmie Cox and a 49% interest for his son, Robert Stephen “Steve” Ross, in specified intellectual-property rights, including rights connected to Ross’s name, likeness, voice, and recorded works. The 2019 federal court opinion recounts that the document required to transfer those interests was not signed until 2017.
Those percentages describe what the amendment sought to allocate. They do not establish that Cox and Steve Ross ultimately received the rights, nor do they describe the division of all money, possessions, or other probate property. The court record does not provide a complete inventory or distribution of Bob Ross’s non-IP assets.
Who owns Bob Ross’s name and likeness rights?
In its 2019 opinion in RSR Art, LLC v. Bob Ross, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded that the trust could not transfer the disputed rights because Bob Ross had already invested them with Bob Ross Inc. (BRI) when he created the trust. The ruling concerned commercial intellectual-property and right-of-publicity claims brought through Steve Ross’s company, RSR Art; it was not a complete adjudication of every asset in Bob Ross’s estate.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
The opinion describes BRI’s earlier use and licensing of Ross’s identity. It says BRI registered five trademarks of Bob Ross’s name and likeness between 1986 and 1992 with Ross’s written consent, sold products bearing his name and likeness during his life with his knowledge and encouragement, and entered into third-party licenses. It also recounts a 1997 settlement and assignment involving the estate, trust, and BRI that addressed relevant rights.
The court’s conclusion turns on ownership: a trust cannot pass property it does not own. The ruling therefore explains why the 51% and 49% figures in the amendment did not, by themselves, give Cox and Steve Ross control of the commercial rights at issue. The opinion also records BRI’s continued development, marketing, and sale of Bob Ross products after his death.
Rank #2
What did the trust allocation and court ruling cover?
| Question | What the record establishes |
|---|---|
| Who did the trust amendment name? | Jimmie Cox for 51% and Steve Ross for 49% of specified intellectual-property interests, according to the 1995 amendment as recounted in the 2019 court opinion. |
| What property was disputed in the case? | Commercial intellectual-property and right-of-publicity interests associated with Bob Ross, including his name and likeness; the case was brought through RSR Art. |
| What did the court decide in 2019? | The trust could not pass the disputed rights because Ross had already invested them with BRI before creating the trust. |
| Who received all personal property or money? | A complete non-IP probate inventory and distribution are not stated in the court opinion. |
Where are the people connected to the estate now?
Joan Kowalski
A LegalClarity article published April 7, 2026 identifies Joan Kowalski, daughter of Annette and Walter Kowalski, as president of Bob Ross Inc. This is dated secondary reporting about a company role; it does not establish the current circumstances or whereabouts of the other people involved.
Steve Ross, Jimmie Cox, Annette Kowalski, and Walter Kowalski
The available sources do not provide a reliable, up-to-date account of where these individuals live or what their day-to-day lives are like. Their historic connections to Bob Ross and the legal dispute are not evidence of their present whereabouts.
Rank #3
- Painting and DrawingBOB ROSS BOOKS
What remains unknown about Bob Ross’s estate?
The court opinion and the cited reporting do not establish a trustworthy total valuation for Bob Ross’s estate or a complete accounting of who inherited personal property, cash, or other non-IP assets. The 2019 decision answers a narrower question about disputed commercial rights. It should not be read as a full probate accounting.
For documentary context, TIME’s August 2021 coverage discusses the Netflix film Bob Ross: Happy Accidents, Betrayal & Greed and the continuing commercial presence of BRI merchandise. The film concerns the broader dispute around Ross’s legacy; the court opinion remains the source for what the 2019 ruling decided.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
