Hicks v. Leslie Feely Fine Art, LLC And John Doe

Facts

P is an abstract painter. Dzubas was a renowned abstract expressionist painter whose award-winning work was widely celebrated in the 1950s and 1960s and whose paintings have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. P met Dzubas in 1979 when Dzubas was 65 years old and P was a 26-year-old student at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. The pair entered a romantic relationship that would span 11 years. In 1981, P allegedly created a painting that is the object of the instant suit. Approximately one year later, P and Dzubas began living together. P brought the Painting, which they hung near the entrance of their home. In 1990, Dzubas's health began to deteriorate due to Parkinson's disease. Dzubas's adult children became increasingly involved in his financial and personal affairs, encouraging him to end his relationship with P and pursue a relationship with another partner. P was driven out of the home by his children and new partner. P was only able to bring her living necessities, bed, and clothing when she moved to her own apartment. P continued to use the art studio connected to the Cambridge house she had shared with Dzubas until she was denied access to the studio space by Dzubas's children and his new partner. P had one day to retrieve her belongings from the art studio. P did not feel welcome in the main house and did not go inside to retrieve the Painting. The Painting remained in the house. After Dzubas's death in 1994, the Painting was included among Dzubas's artwork as part of Dzubas's estate. Melinda Hatch acquired the Painting in the process of settling Dzubas's estate in 2003. On October 6, 2005, P filed for bankruptcy. Twenty-eight of her own paintings were listed as assets of unknown value. In 2017, the Painting was consigned to D for the purpose of displaying and selling it. It was listed as a 1951 piece by Dzubas and, on May 18, 2017, it was sold to Doe for $40,000. P alleges that the Painting was created completely independently from and without assistance by, Dzubas. Dzubas's studio assistant attests that the Painting could not have been painted by Dzubas in 1951 because of the type of paint used and the specific technique used to apply the paint to the canvas. P claims at no point did she relinquish ownership of the Painting to Dzubas, his children, or any other entity. P sued D and John Doe for conversion against both and replevin against Doe. D filed the instant motion to dismiss for (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) lack of personal jurisdiction, (3) failure to state a claim, and (4) laches.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.