Now this is an interesting dilemma: art is violently stolen from the home of an elderly woman and her caretaker in 1976. The police can’t solve the crime, so the insurance company pays out $45,000 on the claim for the stolen art. Fast forward to the present day. The art is found — in the home of a former college professor, who got the art in the place of a debt owed to him by his shady brother.
Now begins a classic battle of tug-of-war over the three paintings now valued at more than $1 million.
But the story (see the full version on The Boston Globe’s Web site) raises an interesting question: who should get the art? The elderly woman’s heirs? The insurance company who paid out the claim? The man who has owned the paintings for the past few decades?
Surely if the elderly woman were still alive the paintings would be returned to her, but does that change now that she is no longer alive?
The current owner will likely not be allowed to keep the stolen art, but should he be compensated in some way? Given an award for turning the art in?
What stake does the insurance company have — if any — over the art? Does paying out a small settlement (compared to the current value of the art) give them the right to turn a profit on the art?
I have far too many questions to decide, but someone will have to. This month, the U.S. attorney’s office in Providence filed a civil action, asking a U.S. District Court judge to determine who owns the paintings.
I eagerly wait for their conclusion to this dilemma.
–
On a completely unrelated note..
Speaking of tug-of-war, did you know there are competitive tug-of-war leagues?
