Art disputes are curious things, especially when they involve questions of ownership. How does one prove rightful ownership? Is there such a thing as“caveat emptor” or “finders keepers” when it comes to fine art?

A popular art ownership dispute that has arisen recently is the ownership of a1903 Picasso owned by the famed Andrew Lloyd Webber. In 1995, Webber’s foundation, the Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation purchased the piece for a little over $27.5 million. It had maintained the painting in its collection until in 2006, when the work, Portrait of Angel Fernandez de Soto, was put up for auction at Christie’s in New York. The auction house expected the painting to fetch close to $60 million. 

The painting never made it to the auction block, however. A German professor,Julius Schoeps, brought a claim against the Foundation, namely, that his ancestor was forced to sell the work in the 1930s during the war. Schoeps, an heir to the German banker Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (who died in 1935),claimed that Mendelssohn-Batholdy had to sell the Picasso at a low price after being forced to flee his home. Based on Schoeps’ claim, a judge stopped the sale.

Such a claim seems far-fetched at best. Does this mean that someone who is forced to sell a piece of art work because she needs the money can stake a claim to that art work later on in the future? What if someone sells an artwork when she is in an intoxicated state? Can she reverse the sale once sober? There must be some sort of public policy against allowing such reversals. The allegations of Schoeps appear to be contrived claims of ownership, and not even clever ones.

Ican understand a situation where one is forced to sell under duress (like imminent threat of death or bodily harm), but such a scenario was not alleged here. The only claim that was made was a forced sale.  What exactly is a forced sale? Was Mendelssohn-Bartholdy fleeing his home and rather than take the art work with him, he felt compelled to sell it? Did someone threaten his life over the sale? There are too many unknown variables here. Given all this, the judge erred in halting the sale.The Foundation, having paid millions of dollars for the painting, is the rightful owner. Perhaps Schoeps should have made such allegations against the holder/owner of the painting who sold it to the Foundation more than a decade ago—but not the Foundation.

In January of this year, Mendelsohn-Bartholdy’s heirs announced that they had reached a settlement with the Foundation, relinquishing any and all claims of title to the painting.

Not shocking. I am sure Schoep’s got what he intended: some monetary compensation to go away.

The art work’s fate is unknown at present.