Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church

[smac97]

Here: Wyoming man suing Mormon church over artwork ownership

Quote

A Wyoming man is suing the Mormon church, claiming some of its leaders breached unwritten contracts with his grandmother, the late painter Minerva Teichert, about the display and ownership of several of her works.

Hmm.  Minerva Teichert died in 1976.  And the purported contracts, being unwritten, may be difficult to establish.  This is particularly so given the specifics alleged in the lawsuit.

Quote

Tim Teichert alleges in a complaint filed in federal court in late July that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrongfully moved and assumed ownership over a set of his grandmother’s paintings that were displayed in church buildings across Utah, Idaho and the artist’s native Wyoming.

But the church says it does own the paintings in question — and their copyrights.

According to Teichert, Minerva made spoken agreements with the church as far back as 1955 that loaned or donated the paintings on conditions governing where they were to be displayed. Teichert says the agreements did not transfer ownership of the paintings to the church.

 

The lawsuit states that the deals also stipulated that if the artwork was ever moved or taken down from their agreed-upon locations, they would be given back to Minerva Teichert or her heirs.

 

The suit names four paintings which were reportedly removed between 2014 and 2020 from a ward house in Minerva’s hometown of Cokeville, as well as eight other paintings displayed at church buildings in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Mexico.

 

Now, the artist’s grandson is asking the court to rule that the paintings should be returned to the Teichert family.

"Loaned or donated the paintings..."  Quite a difference between the two.  

"...on conditions governing where they were to be displayed."  If there were conditions attached, then the transfer was likely not a "donation," which is typically defined as:

Quote

A donation is a gift - usually one of a charitable nature. A donation is a voluntary transfer of property (often money) from the transferor (donor) to the transferee (donee) with no exchange of value (consideration) on the part of the recipient (donee). (The recipient gives nothing in exchange for the donated property.)

When a donor knowingly, intentionally, and unconditionally conveys property (or a symbol of the intended property) to a donee, the donation goes into effect and becomes irrevocable upon the donee's acceptance thereof.

It looks like the question will be whether Minerva "unconditionally" conveyed the paintings to the Church.  

Quote

The suit names four paintings which were reportedly removed between 2014 and 2020 from a ward house in Minerva’s hometown of Cokeville, as well as eight other paintings displayed at church buildings in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Mexico.

The link above goes to a 2020 SL Trib article:

Quote

When Tim Teichert entered the chapel earlier this month in his Cokeville Latter-day Saint meetinghouse, which had been closed for months due to the coronavirus pandemic, to his horror, he spied empty spaces on the wall where two large paintings by his grandmother had hung.

Famed artist Minerva Teichert, who lived most of her married life in the tiny Wyoming town, had hung two of her original works — “Cast Your Net to the Other Side” and “Handcart Pioneers” — there herself in the 1960s, even pasting them to the wall.

In an instant, the grandson knew who had removed them: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ own History Department.

I surmise that the History Department did not remove them without first confirming the Church was on firm legal ground to do so.

Quote

The move was the culmination of years of wrangling over Teichert paintings that have remained in meetinghouses across Wyoming, Utah and Idaho.

Kind of disappointing to see such "wrangling" over religious art.

Quote

It raises questions about who owns these works — when there are few bills of sale or when individual donors buy them for specific settings.

I will be interested, in a somewhat morbid way, to watch how this case unfolds.  

The legal doctrine of laches may come into play: "A doctrine in equity that those who delay too long in asserting an equitable right will not be entitled to bring an action."  "Years of wrangling" may work against Tim Teichert and others who want to dispute ownership of art held by the Church for many decades, particularly where witnesses and most evidence are long gone.

Quote

It also highlights issues around the purpose of religious art, the intent of the artists, and the best places for the pieces to be kept.

In church buildings, they become part of a sacred worship experience, especially when local believers have a personal connection to the artist. They influence how congregants view the scriptures, for instance, helping to bring figures and stories to life for those whose faith is formed in such spaces. The number of people affected by the works, however, remains relatively small.

In a museum or gallery, on the other hand, paintings can be preserved, secured and seen by many, possibly thousands. There, they are appreciated for their beauty, talent and expressiveness, but more as a passive and momentary encounter rather than an ongoing connection.

On balance, I am in favor of specific wards having giclee prints rather than originals.  Here's why:

First, I think it likely that the artwork belongs to the Church, not to one of its wards.  That being the case, the decision as to where to house artwork lies with the Church, not with the descendants of the artists or donors.

Second, a ward building lacks the space and means to properly care for aging artwork (the Trib article lays this out pretty well).

Third, the Trib article notes that the 2010 fire in the Provo Tabernacle destroyed a Teichert original.  Plus artwork in a chapel is more susceptible to both accidental damage (a child with a crayon or marker) and intentional damage (there have been many, many vandalisms of chapels over the last several years, such that a building with an original Teichert may end up attracting the attention of someone determined to do some irreversible damage).

Fourth, I think there is real merit to the argument that significant artwork should be seen "by many," which can't really happen if the artwork is spread around in various church buildings - none of which is designed to facilitate the viewing of art during business hours.

Fifth, giclee prints are pretty good.

Sixth, I'm not particularly comfortable with the "bragging rights" that may arise.  The pride and boasting about having an original Teichert in a particular ward building.  Consider Alma 4:6

Quote

And it came to pass in the eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen, and because of their many flocks and herds, and their gold and their silver, and all manner of precious things, which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel.

(Emphasis added.)

Insert "and their Teichert paintings" and you can see the potential problem.  See also Mormon 8:36-37:

Quote

And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

(Emphases added.)

I guess my thinking of this is heavily influenced by comments made by my brother, who spent many years living in Samoa, and my parents, who served missions in Samoa, Zimbabwe and a small border town in Texas (and my dad served a mission in Argentina years ago).  Latter-day Saint chapels are sometimes criticized as being mundane and drab, but they come across as pretty fancy, even opulent, to people accustomed to meeting in an open-air fale in Samoa, or in a modest rented storefront in a suburb of Harare.  So I guess I'm not very much moved by the arguments presented in the Trib article:

Quote

“The Teichert painting in our building truly made our building special. It was part of the history of our building and we all had a deep appreciation for the painting, the artist, and how the painting made us feel about the love of Christ,” says Jennifer Schiel, an art teacher and stake member. “Original paintings have a quality that can never be duplicated in a giclee. Wherever the original is taken, it will not be loved or appreciated more than it was by all the members who loved and worshipped alongside it every Sunday. We always felt grateful to be the stewards over such a lovely piece of art.”

...

Like the Teichert family, {Stephen} Bennett says, he would be willing to loan the paintings to the church for its 2021 Teichert exhibit but would like to see them returned to the chapel.

“I have difficulty appreciating that people seeing these paintings, mixed with many others, would find the same joy and endearing emotions that members of the ... ward would have by experiencing them at least once a week,” he writes. “I feel it is wrong, unethical, and perhaps unlawful for the church to assume ownership and take from the ... ward these valuable treasures that belong solely to the ward.”

This seems almost antithetical to the point of religious artwork.  Art only has value if it is an original?  If it makes a particular chapel more "special" than others?  That members of one particular ward are more entitled than anyone else to experience "joy and endearing emotions" elicited by the artwork?

Oi. 

Back to the first news item linked to above:

Quote

Sam Penrod, a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement to the Star-Tribune that the church does own the paintings and their copyrights.

“The Church will continue to defend those interests as the case moves through the legal process so that we may preserve and protect this artwork for generations to come,” said Penrod.

Teichert states the family owns copyrights to three of the four Cokeville paintings.

I'm content to let the courts use the laws of the land to sort that out.

Quote

When the church told the family it would be moving the first painting from Cokeville in 2014, the Teicherts were reportedly told church leaders were concerned with preserving the art.

 

That removal, Teichert says in the suit, came during construction of a new temple in Star Valley. After the Teichert family objected to the painting’s removal and cited the conditional agreement, the painting was reportedly installed in the new temple.

I wonder if anyone at the time suggested an arbitration.  If there is a genuine legal dispute between the Church and Minerva's descendants (including Tim, who is apparently a member of the Church), I would have preferred to see it resolved quietly rather than in a splashy lawsuit.

I'm bummed that there is discord in the Church about religious artwork.  Years ago on my mission in Taiwan I had a companion who had a very nice illustration of the Plan of Salvation, with Chinese characters and Chinese-style illustrations.  Apparently he had asked a member in a ward he had served in to create it for him.  It was quite effective at helping investigators conceptualize the basic framework on the Plan.  When my transfer came through, I approached him and asked if I could get a color copy of that illustration, as I was unlikely to see him again and I had only been there a few months, and so would have plenty of opportunity to use it.  He said, in plain and certain terms, no way.  I was surprised and asked him something like: "But why?  It's a really good teaching tool, and I think it could hlep me do a better job of teaching."  He responded (per my recollection) : "Yes, but if I let you have a copy of it ,then it won't be unique anymore.  And you might give other copies to other missionaries."  I responded: "I don't understand.  The purpose of missionary work is to spread the Gospel, and that illustration helps with that.  But okay.  I promise not to make copies of it."   He responded: "I don't know if I can trust you, sorry."  Boy, what a way to end a companionship.

I'll close with 4 Nephi 1:24-25:

Quote

And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

Bummer.  We still have a ways to go, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

“I feel it is wrong, unethical, and perhaps unlawful for the church to assume ownership and take from the ... ward these valuable treasures that belong solely to the ward.”

In reference to the above quote from the Tribune article, are wards set up in such a way (in the legal sense) that they can own anything?

Edited August 12, 2021 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

Just now, ksfisher said:

In reference to the above quote from the Tribune article, are words set up in such a way (in the legal sense) that they can own anything?

I'm wondering that too.  I don't think it's possible for a ward to own something separately from the church.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In reference to the above quote from the Tribune article, are words set up in such a way (in the legal sense) that they can own anything?

Hard to say, really.  I think many decades ago wards and stakes may have been able to own properties, businesses, etc.  Consider, for example, SCERA, which is now a non-profit organization, but which started out as something else:

Quote

The SCERA story began in 1933 when the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to Stake Presidents requesting that local church units provide recreation for their members.  The citizens of the "Sharon Tract" (which became the city of Orem) took up the challenge. 

With unity and determination they formed the Sharon Community (now Cultural) Education Recreation Association. Within a few years, a 745 seat Show House was built on land donated by the Church to provide a setting for the screening of popular family films and occasional live entertainment.  At its grand opening on Sept. 1, 1941, the SCERA theater featured John Wayne in the western "Shepherd of the Hills." 

 

The auditorium was built without financial aid from any government, church, or outside source - the SCERA retained 100 percent control over the facility.  

I don't have sufficient information to speak much on how local wards/stakes held properties and assets.  However, my general sense is that things pertaining to ward/stake ownership/administration of things were a bit loosey-goosey prior to the Church's 1960s-era correlation efforts.  Thereafter the Church consolidated finances (and, presumably, property holdings) away from the ward/stake level.

So could a ward many decades ago have "owned" a donated painting?  I don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 12, 2021 by smac97

[Amulek]

I'm doubtful that the grandson is going to prevail.

Possession really is nine tenths of the law.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Something similar happened a while back involving the heirs of Arnold Friberg. My vague recollection is that the Church was able to quash their claims by unearthing a contract. I’ve not checked in a while, but I presume his paintings are still being included in copies of the Book of Mormon. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

..................................................................................................

'll close with 4 Nephi 1:24-25:

Quote

And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

Bummer.  We still have a ways to go, I think.  ........................

Communism ...............

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here: Wyoming man suing Mormon church over artwork ownership

Hmm.  Minerva Teichert died in 1976.  And the purported contracts, being unwritten, may be difficult to establish.  This is particularly so given the specifics alleged in the lawsuit.

"Loaned or donated the paintings..."  Quite a difference between the two.  

"...on conditions governing where they were to be displayed."  If there were conditions attached, then the transfer was likely not a "donation," which is typically defined as:

 

Artwork is often loaded to museums on condition that they are displayed rather than just kept by the museum to do with it what it wants.  Walk into any museum and you will see countless works of art that designate that the artwork is on loan.  

I do art work for galleries.  Part of the condition of them displaying my art is that it must be displayed and not put in a back room.  If I find out that a gallery has taken down any of my works of art to put in storage, I have taken all of my art out of the gallery even those still on the walls.  

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

First, I think it likely that the artwork belongs to the Church, not to one of its wards.  That being the case, the decision as to where to house artwork lies with the Church, not with the descendants of the artists or donors.

If the church has a bill of sale or some document signing over the rights of the painting then yes.  If they have no proof of ownership, then I doubt very much that they own the artwork.  I have allowed my art to be hung at various venues on a fairly permanent basis, but that doesn't mean I have given them the artwork to do whatever they want to with it.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, a ward building lacks the space and means to properly care for aging artwork (the Trib article lays this out pretty well).

This art work has been up in the ward building for how many decades?  If they feel they can not take care of the aging artwork then it should be given back to the artist or their heirs.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, the Trib article notes that the 2010 fire in the Provo Tabernacle destroyed a Teichert original.  Plus artwork in a chapel is more susceptible to both accidental damage (a child with a crayon or marker) and intentional damage (there have been many, many vandalisms of chapels over the last several years, such that a building with an original Teichert may end up attracting the attention of someone determined to do some irreversible damage).

A fire or vandals can destroy any artwork no matter where it hangs.  Not a real argument.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I think there is real merit to the argument that significant artwork should be seen "by many," which can't really happen if the artwork is spread around in various church buildings - none of which is designed to facilitate the viewing of art during business hours.

 There are literally thousands of paintings done by some of the most famous artists in history including Rembrandt, El Greco, Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, that are not in museums, but are still in the churches that first commissioned the artwork literally centuries later.  People that want to see them make pilgrimages to see those paintings.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, giclee prints are pretty good.

Ah, no they are not.  They are fancy photographs.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

This seems almost antithetical to the point of religious artwork.  Art only has value if it is an original?  If it makes a particular chapel more "special" than others?  That members of one particular ward are more entitled than anyone else to experience "joy and endearing emotions" elicited by the artwork?

Yes.  Works of art by master painters only have value if it is an original.  If you don't believe that, I have a giclee print of some flowers done by Van Gough I will gladly sell you for 84 million dollars..

 

[JustAnAustralian]

Courtlistener page https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60089248/teichert-v-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Communism ...............

Plenty of daylight between Communism and the Law of Consecration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 If they have no proof of ownership, then I doubt very much that they own the artwork.

Wouldn't the same apply to the grandson as well?  Wouldn't he have to prove that it was his family and not the church that owned the paintings? 

I have an original painting hanging on one of my walls given to me by the artist who is now deceased.  What would stop his family from claiming that they owned it and I should return it?  I don't have any documentation.

I'm not sure how the law sees this so I'm asking for info, not trying to be argumentative.

Edited August 13, 2021 by ksfisher

[OGHoosier]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

A fire or vandals can destroy any artwork no matter where it hangs.  Not a real argument.

I don't know specifics, but I imagine that security on Temple Square or in the Church History Library is better than at any individual chapel, and it is true that chapels of late have been targeted for vandalism. I think @smac97 has a point here. 

9 hours ago, california boy said:

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, giclee prints are pretty good.

Ah, no they are not.  They are fancy photographs.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

This seems almost antithetical to the point of religious artwork.  Art only has value if it is an original?  If it makes a particular chapel more "special" than others?  That members of one particular ward are more entitled than anyone else to experience "joy and endearing emotions" elicited by the artwork?

Yes.  Works of art by master painters only have value if it is an original.  If you don't believe that, I have a giclee print of some flowers done by Van Gough I will gladly sell you for 84 million dollars..

I think we're dealing with two different varieties of value here. It is true that in a financial sense the only works of art with value are originals, and giclee prints are no substitute. However, I think Smac was referring to the value which the observer gets by viewing the art and reflecting on its subject matter, and I do not believe that this kind of value could only be derived from an original work.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Artwork is often loaded to museums on condition that they are displayed rather than just kept by the museum to do with it what it wants.  Walk into any museum and you will see countless works of art that designate that the artwork is on loan.  

I do art work for galleries.  Part of the condition of them displaying my art is that it must be displayed and not put in a back room.  If I find out that a gallery has taken down any of my works of art to put in storage, I have taken all of my art out of the gallery even those still on the walls.

I wonder if such nuances exist in the present case.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

If the church has a bill of sale or some document signing over the rights of the painting then yes.  

I wonder if an artist donating a painting to her own church in the 1950s would have included a bill of sale in the process.

From this article:

Quote

According to Teichert, Minerva made spoken agreements with the church as far back as 1955 that loaned or donated the paintings on conditions governing where they were to be displayed. Teichert says the agreements did not transfer ownership of the paintings to the church.

The lawsuit states that the deals also stipulated that if the artwork was ever moved or taken down from their agreed-upon locations, they would be given back to Minerva Teichert or her heirs.

From the Complaint:

Quote

12. Although Teichert did exchange a series of paintings to cover tuition costs for her descendants attending Brigham Young University and sold a few others, many of her paintings that ended up in the Church's possession were conditional gifts, placed in specific Church buildings or loaned to the Church for a specific purpose and not intended as outright unconditional gifts conveying title to the Church.

I did a quick Westlaw search to see if there is any case law in Wyoming about conditional gifts.  I did not see any.  This is not particularly surprising, as Wyoming has the smallest population in the United States, and therefore does not generate much case law, such that there are many areas of law that have not been addressed by the Wyoming Supreme Court.

From a Utah case: 

Quote

“Whether a gift is conditional or absolute is a question of the donor's intent, to be determined from any express declaration by the donor at the time of the making of the gift or from the circumstances.” 38 Am.Jur.2d Gifts § 72 (1999).
...
Mace v. Tingey, 106 Utah 420, 149 P.2d 832, 834 (1944) (evaluating “the intention of the donor, the situation and relationship of the parties, the kind and character of the property, and the things said, written or done” in determining whether an irrevocable gift was given (emphasis omitted)).

From Colorado:

Quote

In order to qualify as a gift, a transfer of property must involve a simultaneous intention to make a gift, delivery of the gift and acceptance of the gift. In re Marriage of Balanson, 25 P.3d 28, 37 (Colo. 2001). Moreover, a gift is established when, “the donor parts with all present and future dominion over the property given.” Further, “the gift must be absolute and irrevocable without reference to taking effect at some future period.” Johnson v. Hilliard, 113 Colo. 548, 552–553, 160 P.2d 386, 388 (Colo. 1945).

Ultimately, it is the intent of the transferor that is determinative, and to prove that a gift was not intended, Mrs. Nelabovige may rely upon “all the attendant facts and circumstances including statements made by the parties contemporaneously with the transaction” ....and “evidence of the transferor's acts and conduct, which occur subsequent to the transfer of title, is admissible to prove intent at the time of the transfer.” Mancuso v. United Bank of Pueblo, 818 P.2d 732, 740 (Colo. 1991).

From Iowa:

Quote

A valid inter vivos gift requires proof of three elements: (1) donative intent, (2) delivery, and (3) acceptance. Gray v. Roth, 438 N.W.2d 25, 29 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (citing Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983)). “The intent of the grantor is the controlling element.” Id. After the donor delivers a gift, it is irrevocable unless the parties agree otherwise. Frederick, 147 N.W.2d at 483. But if there is a condition attached to the delivered gift, the gift fails. Gray, 438 N.W.2d at 29.

"Inter vivos" references a gift from one living person to another, as opposed to a bequest wherein the estate a deceased person gives something to a living person.

"Donative intent" means "{t}he conscious desire to make a gift, as distinguished from giving something as a gift by mistake or under pressure."

I think the Teichert dispute will focus on donative intent, as "delivery" and "acceptance" are not in dispute.  From another Iowa case:

Quote

The intent of the grantor is the controlling element. If there is a condition as to the vesting of title of the property, the gift fails. Id. The donor must have a clear intention to pass all right, title, and dominion over the gift to the donee. Varvaris v. Varvaris, 255 Iowa 800, 803, 124 N.W.2d 163, 165 (1963).

From a New York case:

Quote

A valid inter vivos gift requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, of “the intent on the part of the donor to make a present transfer; delivery of the gift, either actual or constructive to the donee; and acceptance by the donee” (Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 53, 505 N.Y.S.2d 849, 496 N.E.2d 869).

This is interesting, as it seems to place a heavy evidentiary burden to establish Minerva's donative intent.  The Iowa case says that "the donor must have a clear intention to pass all right, title, and dominion over the gift to the donee," and the New York case references "proof, by clear and convincing evidence" of this donative intent.

The question, though, is who carries this burden?  The donor (or, in this case, Teichert's estate) or the donee (the Church)?  (On balance, I would think that the donee would have the burden of proof, but I'm open to correction on that point.)

From another Iowa case:

Quote

To give a conditional gift, the donor must “deliver[ ] the personal property to the donee ... with the manifested intention that the donee acquire an ownership that terminates—(1) after the passage of some specified period of time; or (2) on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of some event or condition.” Restatement (Second) of Prop.: Donative Transfers § 31.2 (1992). The donor of a conditional gift thus gives less than his entire ownership interest in the property and retains for himself a reversionary interest. Id. § 31.2 cmt. a. In the case of a gift that may be terminated at any time by the donor, “the donor's right to terminate automatically expires at the death of the donor.” Id. § 31.2 cmt. b. This concept is explained by the following illustration:

 

O is the owner of a watch. O delivers the watch to his son, S, with the comment, “You may use this watch until I want it back.” Legally admissible evidence is available to prove that O made the quoted comment. S is entitled to wear the watch until O requests its return. If O dies without requesting the return of the watch, the conclusion is justified that S is entitled to keep the watch.

 

Id. § 31.2 cmt. b. illus. 1.

Huh.  I wonder if this principle applies to the Teichert case.  

From a Tennessee case:

Quote

We must now examine whether the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum has standing regarding the four pieces of art that were part of Ms. O'Keeffe's personal art collection.

 

The four paintings separately owned by Ms. O'Keeffe were not initially given or gifted to the University by Ms. O'Keeffe. To the contrary, when Ms. O'Keeffe made the gift of the ninety-seven pieces from her husband's estate, she merely loaned her four pieces to the University. Specifically, when the four pieces were delivered to the University in June 1949, they were officially “on permanent loan” to the University; thereafter, Ms. O'Keeffe made a gift of the four pieces to the University.

 

The elements necessary to constitute a valid gift are well-settled under New York law. ... A valid inter vivos gift requires intent, delivery, and acceptance. ... “There must be an intent to make an immediate gift, a delivery of the thing given and an acceptance of the gift.” ... Further, “[t]he delivery must be such as to vest the donees with the control and dominion of the property, to divest, absolutely, the donor of his dominion and control, and it must be made with the intent to vest the title to the property in the donee.” 

 

The gifting of these four pieces is evidenced by a series of letters and telegrams exchanged between Ms. O'Keeffe and President Johnson between 1949 and 1955 and Ms. O'Keeffe's personal tax returns for 1949 and 1956. The first gift is evidenced by a letter dated December 27, 1949, from Ms. O'Keeffe to President Johnson, wherein she stated: “I should like to make a gift to Fisk University of my painting by Charles Demuth, ‘Calla Lillies', which I have placed at Fisk on loan.” President Johnson formally accepted the gift in a letter by responding that “[y]our decision to make a gift to Fisk University of the painting “Calla Lillies” by Charles Demuth pleases us greatly....” Thereafter, in January 1955, Ms. O'Keeffe sent a Western Union telegram to President Johnson that asked, “Can Fisk accept my painting you have on permanent loan “Radiator Building Night N.Y. 27” as a [19]54 gift?”⁷ President Johnson wrote back that “Fisk University is pleased to accept your painting, Radiator Building, Night, as a 1954 gift to the Art Gallery of this institution.” While there is no correspondence in the record concerning the other two paintings, In Vaudeville and Flying Backbone, Ms. O'Keeffe's tax returns reveal that she also made a gift of these two paintings to the University in the tax year 1956.

 

Ms. O'Keeffe's letters, which are the gift instruments, made no reference to a right of reversion or that Ms. O'Keeffe or her estate could revoke the gifts of her four pieces for any reason. Similarly, other correspondence between Ms. O'Keeffe and Dr. Johnson found in the record shows no evidence of an intent to maintain a right to revoke her gift of the four paintings or to make the gifts conditional. Although there are no direct or implied references to a right of reversion or revocation, Ms. O'Keeffe did express frustration with the University's failure to properly maintain the Collection on more than one occasion.

In 1951, a year after she gifted Calla Lillies to the University, and before she gifted the other three paintings, Ms. O'Keeffe wrote to President Johnson admonishing him for the University's removal of part of the collection. She again wrote President Johnson stating that the University did not appear to have anyone to properly care for the Collection and asked, “Would you like to consider letting me withdraw the Collection?” (Emphasis added). She ended the letter with the following statement: “In the meantime, if you find the Collection too much of a problem and wish to consider giving it up, let me know so that I can plan what to do with it next.” President Johnson responded indicating that the University wanted to maintain the collection and assured Ms. O'Keeffe that the proper measures would be employed to maintain and preserve the Collection. Although Ms. O'Keeffe occasionally expressed concern, if not frustration, with the University's care and use of the Collection, at no time did Ms. O'Keeffe assert that she had a right of reversion and at no time did she make a demand for the return of any of the four pieces she gifted to the University.

 

The foregoing correspondence reveals that Ms. O'Keeffe expected the University to properly maintain and exhibit the Collection; however, there is no indication in the correspondence that Ms. O'Keeffe expressly retained a right of reversion in herself or her estate. To the contrary, although occasionally frustrated with the University, Ms. O'Keeffe gifted three additional paintings that had been on permanent loan after she became aware of some deficiencies in the maintenance of the Collection. Therefore, there is no evidence in the record from which to make a finding that Ms. O'Keeffe intended to retain a reversionary interest in any of the four pieces she gifted to the University between 1949 and 1956.

Huh.  I wonder what the court in the Teichert dispute will do, because unlike the foregoing case, it looks like there isn't much evidence available to ascertain Minerva's donative intent.  

Anyway, back to the Complaint:

Quote

13. Moreover, Teirchert never entered into any written agreements with the Church that transferred over legal title or any other rights.

14. Indeed, Teichert never gave the Church or the local Church buildings/congregations authorization to do anything other than display her paintings, with certain conditions, and those conditions required the display of particular paintings at locations specified by Teichert.
...
17. ... {I}n 1955, Teichert entered into an oral agreement with the Cokeville ward bishop, Herman K. Teichert, whereby Teichert agreed that the Church would be allowed to display four (4) original paintings, namely (i) The Song of Quetzalcoatle, (ii) Relief Society Quilting, (iii) Cast Your Nets on the Other Side and (iv) Handcart Pioneers (all collectively, the "Cokeville Paintings").

It will be interesting to see what evidence Tim Teichert has to prove these allegations.

Quote

18. The Estate of Minerva Teichert owns the copyright interests in Relief Society Quilting, Cast Your Nets on the Other Side, and Handcart Pioneers.  Certificates of Registration from the United States Copyright Office are attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

The Certificates of Registration are from April 2021.

Quote

19. The placement of the Cokeville Paintings was conditioned upon the fact that if the Church or the local Church leadership ever decided to replace or remove the Cokeville Paintings, the conditional gift or loan would end and the paintings would immediately revert back to Teirchert, or her heir(s).

20. Furthermore, the conditional gift or loan expressly precluded anyone from moving the Cokeville Paintngs to any other location -- be it a ward house, temple, or other Church property.  See id.

21. The sole purpose of allowing the display of Minerva Teichert's works of art in the Cokeville Ward House was that it would be particularly significant to Teichert and her family, and members of the Cokevill community.

22. No ownership changed hands and Teichert never authorized the Church to relocate the Cokeville Paintings.  They were at all times conditional gifts or loans under Wyoming law.

Again, it will be interesting to see what evidence Tim Teichert has to prove these allegations.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

If they have no proof of ownership, then I doubt very much that they own the artwork.

I think the issue will come down to A) donative intent, and B) who has the burden of establishing that intent.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I have allowed my art to be hung at various venues on a fairly permanent basis, but that doesn't mean I have given them the artwork to do whatever they want to with it.

Yes.  But we don't really know whether Minerva had donative intent.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

This art work has been up in the ward building for how many decades?  If they feel they can not take care of the aging artwork then it should be given back to the artist or their heirs.

Unless, of course, the Church owns the artwork. 

8 hours ago, california boy said:

A fire or vandals can destroy any artwork no matter where it hangs.  Not a real argument.

It's not an argument as to ownership.  It's a point about the reasonableness of the Church removing the paintings (assuming it owns them, that is).

8 hours ago, california boy said:

There are literally thousands of paintings done by some of the most famous artists in history including Rembrandt, El Greco, Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, that are not in museums, but are still in the churches that first commissioned the artwork literally centuries later.  People that want to see them make pilgrimages to see those paintings.

But if the owner of the paintings wants to make them more accessible, it has the option of moving the paintings.  That's my point.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Fifth, giclee prints are pretty good.

Ah, no they are not.  They are fancy photographs.

And they are pretty good.

I think I have a different perspective on religious artwork than you do.  That's okay.  De gustibus non est disputandum.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

This seems almost antithetical to the point of religious artwork.  Art only has value if it is an original?  If it makes a particular chapel more "special" than others?  That members of one particular ward are more entitled than anyone else to experience "joy and endearing emotions" elicited by the artwork?

Yes.  Works of art by master painters only have value if it is an original.  If you don't believe that, I have a giclee print of some flowers done by Van Gough I will gladly sell you for 84 million dollars.

Again, I think I have a different perspective on religious artwork than you do.

I was not speaking of monetary value.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ipod Touch]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Something similar happened a while back involving the heirs of Arnold Friberg. My vague recollection is that the Church was able to quash their claims by unearthing a contract. I’ve not checked in a while, but I presume his paintings are still being included in copies of the Book of Mormon. 

I love these paintings.

Nephi and Moroni looking like Thor is pretty cool.  The Waters of Mormon must have had some killer workout facilities.  Look at all those 6-packs!

[smac97]

As I noted above, I think the Teichert dispute will come down to whether Minerva had "donative intent," that is, the intent to donate (not loan or conditionally give) the paintings to the Church.  A few thoughts on that point:

1. I wonder if the plaintiff, Tim Teichert, has any evidence of Minerva's donative intent.  And by that I mean competent, probative, admissible evidence.  If all he has is vague family recollections and hearsay, I think he may have difficulty in establishing his case.

2. I found a Wyoming case that addresses presumptions about inter vivos gifts:

Quote

Nothing has been shown in the instant case which would give rise to a presumption that the check in question was intended as a loan. That is especially true in view of the rule that a close relationship, such a parent and child, creates a presumption that delivery of property was intended as a gift. Of course, this presumption can be rebutted by sufficient evidence to the contrary. See 38 C.J.S. Gifts s 65, p. 860; and Fister v. Fister, 122 Colo. 432, 222 P.2d 620, 622.

I wonder if such a presumption would apply to Minerva's delivery of the paintings to the Church.

3. From a Pennsylvania case:

Quote

Initially, the burden is on the alleged donee to prove an inter vivos gift by clear, precise and convincing evidence. Hera v. McCormick, 425 Pa.Super. 432, 625 A.2d 682, 686 (1992). Once prima facie evidence of a gift is established, a presumption of validity arises and the burden shifts to the contestant to rebut this presumption by clear, precise and convincing evidence. Id.

If the federal court in Teichert uses some sort of "burden shifting" framework in the Teichert case, then the Church may well lose, since it is the "donee" of the paintings, and will therefore have the obligation to prove donative intent "by clear, precise and convincing evidence."  If it can't meet this evidentiary burden, then the donor (here, Minerva's estate) wins.

The problem, though, is that there are a variety of different "burden shifting" and "presumption" frameworks in different jurisdictions.  I'm not sure Wyoming has selected one for itself.  See here:

Mississippi:

Quote

Regarding gifts, “as a general rule, the donee bears the burden of proof.” Yarbrough v. Patrick, 65 So. 3d 865, 870 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Virginia:

Quote

“[T]he burden of proof rests upon [the donee] to show every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute a valid gift by clear and convincing evidence.” Rust v. Phillips, 208 Va. 573, 578, 159 S.E.2d 628 (1968).

Also Virginia:

Quote

“It is well settled that the law does not presume a gift and where a donee claims title to personal property by virtue of a gift inter vivos, the burden of proof rests upon him to show every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute a valid gift by clear and convincing evidence.” Rust v. Phillips, 208 Va. 573, 578, 159 S.E.2d 628, 631 (1968) (quoting Grace v. Virginia Trust Co., 150 Va. 56, 142 S.E. 378 (1928) ). Therefore, in order to establish the existence of a gift, wife was required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence “(1) the intention on the part of the donor to make the gift; (2) delivery or transfer of the gift; and (3) acceptance of the gift by the donee.”

Illinois:

Quote

Generally, a presumption of ownership arises from possession of property. People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528, ¶ 17, 352 Ill.Dec. 33, 952 N.E.2d 1259; Gilbert v. National Cash–Register Co., 176 Ill. 288, 297, 52 N.E. 22 (1898) (“The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property.”).

But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. “[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary to the presumption, the bubble bursts and the presumption vanishes.” Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean, 95 Ill. 2d 452, 462, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872 (1983); Swiecicki v. Swiecicki, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1037, 1040, 194 Ill.Dec. 437, 627 N.E.2d 774 (1994) (son claimed $20,000 given to him by his father was a gift rather than a loan: “Even if we assume that a presumption of a gift has been raised by the defendants, it ceases to operate once contrary evidence is introduced.”). If evidence rebutting the presumption is introduced, then the case is decided on basis of evidence presented at trial as if no presumption had ever existed. Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill. 2d at 460, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872 (citing Diederich v. Walters, 65 Ill. 2d 95, 100-01, 2 Ill.Dec. 685, 357 N.E.2d 1128 (1976) ).

The party challenging a presumption must adduce evidence “ ‘sufficient to support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact.’ ” Id. at 463, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872 (quoting Michael H. Graham, Presumptions in Civil Cases in Illinois: Do They Still Exist? 1977 S. Ill. U. L.J. 1, 24). The quantum of evidence necessary to rebut a particular presumption “is not determined by any fixed rule” (id.) and depends on the circumstances of each case (id. (citing Wunderlich v. Buerger, 287 Ill. 440, 445, 122 N.E. 827 (1919) ) ).

 

Also Illinois:

Quote

The alleged donee has the burden of proving the existence of donative intent by the donor, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Moniuszko, 238 Ill.App.3d at 529, 179 Ill.Dec. 636, 606 N.E.2d 468. 

Connecticut:

Quote

The burden of proving intent and delivery rests upon the party claiming the gift.

Idaho:

Quote

Donative intent may be proven by direct evidence, including statements of donative intent, or inferences drawn from the surrounding circumstances, such as the relationship between the donor and donee.

Tennessee:

Quote

Under Tennessee law, “the rule with reference to gifts inter vivos ... is that intention to give and delivery of the subject of the gift must clearly appear[ and d]oubts must be resolved against the gift.

Texas:

Quote

The burden of proving that property was acquired by gift is on the recipient.

Georgia:

Quote

The burden is on the person claiming the gift to prove all essential elements of a gift.

New Jersey:

Quote

As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he burden of proving an inter vivos gift is on the party who asserts the claim.” Bhagat, supra, 217 N.J. at 41, 84 A.3d 583 (citing Sadofski v. Williams, 60 N.J. 385, 395 n. 3, 290 A.2d 143 (1972)). As a general matter, “the recipient [of the alleged gift] must show by ‘clear, cogent and persuasive’ evidence that the donor intended to make a gift.” Ibid. (quoting Farris v. Farris Eng'g Corp., 7 N.J. 487, 501, 81 A.2d 731 (1951)). The Supreme Court has also described the degree of proof necessary as “clear and convincing” where the claim of a gift is first asserted after the alleged donor's death, as here. Sadofski, supra, 60 N.J. at 395 n. 3, 290 A.2d 143.

Also New Jersey:

Quote

The burden of proving an inter vivos gift is on the party who asserts the claim. Sadofski v. Williams, 60 N.J. 385, 395 n. 3, 290 A.2d 143 (1972). Generally, the recipient must show by “clear, cogent and persuasive” evidence that the donor intended to make a gift.

New Hampshire:

Quote

Generally, the burden of proving that a transfer of property is a gift is on the grantee or the party who asserts that a gift has been made. Bean v. Bean, 71 N.H. 538, 541, 53 A. 907 (1902); 38 Am.Jur.2d Gifts § 79, at 836 (2010).

Ohio:

Quote

Generally, when a gift is alleged, the burden is on the one claiming the gift to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Havel v. Havel, 11th Dist. Lake No. 89–L–14–093, 1990 WL 212632, *3 (Dec. 21, 1990). “In order to establish that an item was received as a gift, actual delivery and an intent to give must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.

Pennsylvania:

Quote

Donative intent can be inferred from the relationship between the donor and donee.

Also Pennsylvania:

Quote

When asserting that an inter vivos gift was conditional, the donor bears the burden of establishing the same. In re Yeager's Estate, 273 Pa. 359, 117 A. 67, 68 (1922).

On balance, I think the foregoing case law weighs against the Church's position.

That said, I am sure there are plenty of additional factors I have not considered.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Artwork is often loaded to museums on condition that they are displayed rather than just kept by the museum to do with it what it wants.  Walk into any museum and you will see countless works of art that designate that the artwork is on loan.  

I do art work for galleries.  Part of the condition of them displaying my art is that it must be displayed and not put in a back room.  If I find out that a gallery has taken down any of my works of art to put in storage, I have taken all of my art out of the gallery even those still on the walls.  

If the church has a bill of sale or some document signing over the rights of the painting then yes.  If they have no proof of ownership, then I doubt very much that they own the artwork.

If she died in 1976 (I thought I saw that) does it make a difference on the likelihood of the bill of sale? - I highly doubt I would keep one that long, but I am not an organization and if she was as famous then as she is now then it would probably cost more than I could handle so that might make a difference in keeping a bill if sale.

 

11 hours ago, california boy said:

 I have allowed my art to be hung at various venues on a fairly permanent basis, but that doesn't mean I have given them the artwork to do whatever they want to with it.

This art work has been up in the ward building for how many decades?  If they feel they can not take care of the aging artwork then it should be given back to the artist or their heirs.

A fire or vandals can destroy any artwork no matter where it hangs.  Not a real argument.

 There are literally thousands of paintings done by some of the most famous artists in history including Rembrandt, El Greco, Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, that are not in museums, but are still in the churches that first commissioned the artwork literally centuries later.  People that want to see them make pilgrimages to see those paintings.

Visiting some of those churches I have really appreciated that.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Ah, no they are not.  They are fancy photographs.

Yes.  It has amazed me the difference in seeing them in person. And the cost differences can be quite dramatic.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes.  Works of art by master painters only have value if it is an original.  If you don't believe that, I have a giclee print of some flowers done by Van Gough I will gladly sell you for 84 million dollars..

 

It all really comes down to who owns the pieces.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Rain

[Tacenda]

If the artist donated or loaned, either one, the church should have a heart and give them back to the family. But anyone that donates their tithing dollars or pays for a mission ahead of time, no way Jose'. 

But I think there could be a way for the church and just do it. When donations were illegally gotten the church returns the $. And in this situation they should as well, unless the church actually purchased the paintings and can prove it. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

If the artist donated or loaned, either one, the church should have a heart and give them back to the family.

I can get on board with returning something that was loaned. But donated goes to far.

What the family wants now shouldn't trump what the actual artist wanted back when she made the donation.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Amulek

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Plenty of daylight between Communism and the Law of Consecration.

Thanks,

-Smac

The early Christians, the Qumran covenanters (Essenes), and the Mormons were all communists.  Or as the late Eugene England pointed out long ago in a book review, “the divine economic order is not democratic capitalism, but theocratic socialism,” and he observed that today’s capitalistic Mormons were in the 19th century “dangerously anticapitalistic utopians.”  Sunstone Review, 2/10 (Oct 1982):1,25-27; quotes on 27 & 26, respectively; cf. R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 105, 154-155.

Mormonism, according to Kenneth Rexroth, had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!!  Rexroth did a major study of Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (1974), in which he gauged the true nature of old-style Mormonism.  Moreover, similar conclusions were reached by Ephraim E. Ericksen, Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (1922/1975), and by Arthur Maass & Raymond L. Anderson in their 1978 MIT Press study . . . and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth and Justice in Arid Environments; cf. Sidney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (1972), 501-509; Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/ 1992); Dean May, “One Heart and Mind: Communal Life and Values Among the Mormons,” in Donald E. Pitzer, ed., America’s Communal Utopias (1997), 150-151.

See also Dean Huffaker, “Law of Consecration Abandoned,” Seventh East Press, 2/1 (Sept 28, 1982):5,7,13,17; Mario De Pillis, “The Development of Mormon Communitarianism, 1826-1846,” doctoral dissertation (Yale Univ., 1960); Gordon E. Wagner, “Consecration and Stewardship: A Socially Efficient System of Justice,” doctoral dissertation (Cornell Univ., 1977); Ronald Walker, “Brigham Young on the Social Order,” BYU Studies, 28/4 (Summer 1988):37-52; Allen Lambert, “Capitalism and Christianity,” Sunstone Review, 2/11 (Nov 1982):18-20

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I can get on board with returning something that was loaned. But donated goes to far.

What the family wants now shouldn't trump what the actual artist wanted back when she made the donation.

 

Long ago, my great-grandfather donated land from his estate for use as a Church welfare farm. It’s not far from where I live right now. Today, a Church meetinghouse sits on that land along with some higher-end homes. There are no more crop fields or hog barns. The land must be worth several millions of dollars by now. 

As his descendant, I want that property back, given that it’s no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired.* 

 

*Not really. Just using this for the purpose of analogy. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Wouldn't the same apply to the grandson as well?  Wouldn't he have to prove that it was his family and not the church that owned the paintings? 

I have an original painting hanging on one of my walls given to me by the artist who is now deceased.  What would stop his family from claiming that they owned it and I should return it?  I don't have any documentation.

I'm not sure how the law sees this so I'm asking for info, not trying to be argumentative.

I am just saying that it is extremely common for an artist or the owner of art to allow their art hung at institutions without giving ownership of that artwork to the institution.  Generally an artist does not lend their artwork to individuals to hang in their homes.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I don't know specifics, but I imagine that security on Temple Square or in the Church History Library is better than at any individual chapel, and it is true that chapels of late have been targeted for vandalism. I think @smac97 has a point here. 

Artwork has been vandalized in high security museums.  Do you have ANY examples where art has been vandalized in a chapel?  Is it common?  

 

I also know that the Church does not have a particularly good history of protecting valuable art.  When I was going to BYU, there was a big scandal about how lax BYU was about taking care of the art it owned.  It was not well inventoried or carefully watched.  Valuable paintings were found being used as props for BYU drama department.  Others were hanging in professors offices with no idea how they got there.  And I am talking about pieces of art far more valuable than the ones being discussed.  There were forgery scams going on like this one that involved a Monet and a Windslow Homer.  From the article

Quote

Before the discovery of the losses, BYU's collection was loosely held. Faculty members were allowed into storage rooms to select art to decorate their office walls. Urban legends, rumors and innuendo swirled around the university about a Rembrandt found on the floor of a storage room, paintings rolled up and stuffed into corners.

The BYU loss was staggering. Nearly 10 percent of the 12,000-piece collection was gone. 

 

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I think we're dealing with two different varieties of value here. It is true that in a financial sense the only works of art with value are originals, and giclee prints are no substitute. However, I think Smac was referring to the value which the observer gets by viewing the art and reflecting on its subject matter, and I do not believe that this kind of value could only be derived from an original work.

Well then why doesn't the Church give back the artwork to the grandson on condition that they are allowed to hang a giclee?  The Church gets what it wants and the heir gets what he wants.  

Edited August 13, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The early Christians, the Qumran covenanters (Essenes), and the Mormons were all communists. 

Not really.  From The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies: 

Quote

The Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia developed models which varied both over time and from each other. Nevertheless, six defining characteristics of Communist ideology are identified and elaborated—the monopoly of power of the ruling Communist party; democratic centralism; state ownership of the means of production; centrally planned rather than market economy; membership of an international Communist movement; and the aspiration, in principle, to move eventually to a stateless, classless communist society.

Some of these seem like secular counterparts to what we think of in terms of the Law of Consecration and such.  The overlay of Marxist–Leninist atheism on communistic ideologies rather sets those ideologies apart from the religious groups you reference here.  

As for the early Latter-day Saints as communists, I dunno.  First and foremost, membership and participation in in the United Order was ostensibly voluntary.  Property ownership/distribution was handled by ecclesiastical, rather than elected political, leaders.  Josehp Smith's concepts pre-dated Marx.  The precepts pertaining to the United Order are specifically religious in nature, rather than secularly political.  See also here:

Quote

Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 20th century sought to make a clear distinction between Marxist communism and the law of consecration as practiced by the United Order, teaching that the practices differed as related to the topics of free will, private property, and deity.^[20][21][22] The law of consecration and the United Order can be compared to the shared economic arrangement presented in the New Testament as practiced by 1st-century Christians in Jerusalem.^[3][4] In the 20th century, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee,^[23] Ezra Taft Benson,^[20] Marion G. Romney,^[21][22][24] and J. Reuben Clark,^[2][25][26] claimed that communism is a "counterfeit" version of the law of consecration. In 1942, the church issued the following statement:

Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the Gospel plan ... The United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies.^[26]

Nevertheless, communal unity and equality are central tenets of the Latter Day Saint doctrine of Zion as described in Moses 7:18, "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."

These seem like legitimate points.

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Or as the late Eugene England pointed out long ago in a book review, “the divine economic order is not democratic capitalism, but theocratic socialism,” and he observed that today’s capitalistic Mormons were in the 19th century “dangerously anticapitalistic utopians.”  Sunstone Review, 2/10 (Oct 1982):1,25-27; quotes on 27 & 26, respectively; cf. R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 105, 154-155.

I wonder how much of the supposed "danger" arose by way of the tension between choosing one (capitalism) over the other (the United Order).  We don't really have the option of living the Law of Consecration right now, so I'm not sure members of the Church should be faulted for resorting to capitalism (though the pursuit of wealth to excess certainly has dangers).

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mormonism, according to Kenneth Rexroth, had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!!  Rexroth did a major study of Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (1974), in which he gauged the true nature of old-style Mormonism.  Moreover, similar conclusions were reached by Ephraim E. Ericksen, Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (1922/1975), and by Arthur Maass & Raymond L. Anderson in their 1978 MIT Press study . . . and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth and Justice in Arid Environments; cf. Sidney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (1972), 501-509; Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/ 1992); Dean May, “One Heart and Mind: Communal Life and Values Among the Mormons,” in Donald E. Pitzer, ed., America’s Communal Utopias (1997), 150-151.

See also Dean Huffaker, “Law of Consecration Abandoned,” Seventh East Press, 2/1 (Sept 28, 1982):5,7,13,17; Mario De Pillis, “The Development of Mormon Communitarianism, 1826-1846,” doctoral dissertation (Yale Univ., 1960); Gordon E. Wagner, “Consecration and Stewardship: A Socially Efficient System of Justice,” doctoral dissertation (Cornell Univ., 1977); Ronald Walker, “Brigham Young on the Social Order,” BYU Studies, 28/4 (Summer 1988):37-52; Allen Lambert, “Capitalism and Christianity,” Sunstone Review, 2/11 (Nov 1982):18-20

Thanks for the references.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

If she died in 1976 (I thought I saw that) does it make a difference on the likelihood of the bill of sale? - I highly doubt I would keep one that long, but I am not an organization and if she was as famous then as she is now then it would probably cost more than I could handle so that might make a difference in keeping a bill if sale.

When it comes to original art, being able to follow the documentation to the original sale from the artist is paramount to the value of the painting.  It can mean the difference between proving that the art is authentic or a forgery.  You should ALWAYS keep the bill of sale for a work of art.  It can be as valuable as the painting if the artwork is ever brought into question.

Now, whether the local chapel understood this importance or not is another matter.  

 

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Visiting some of those churches I have really appreciated that.

Yes.  It has amazed me the difference in seeing them in person. And the cost differences can be quite dramatic.

It all really comes down to who owns the pieces.

Of course it does come down to who owns the paintings.  I would hope that the Church would give the heirs great latitude in that decision.  If the value to the Church is the imagery, then as I suggested above, make a giclee of the painting to retain the imagery and return the grandmothers painting to the heir.  After all, does the Church really need more assets?

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  From The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies: 

The Oxford Handbook childishly confuses the state capitalism of Lenin and Mao with so-called “communism”.  The now defunct Soviet Empire was merely a continuation of the Czarist Russian Empire, with Lenin and then Stalin as Czar (they literally inherited the Czarist bureaucracy!), while Chairman Mao was the last true Emperor of China, and he even compared himself to previous emperors.  Expert in mass murder, terror, and totalitarianism, these despots, whether East European or Oriental, misunderstood Marx and never practiced any form of communism.  There is no evidence to indicate that LDS leaders ever understood that history, nor that they were conversant with political, economic, or social theory.

On phony “communism” see Milovan Djilas’ brilliant introduction to his The New Class (1957); cf. Richard Pipes, The Degaev Affair: Terror and Treason in Tsarist Russia (2003); Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (1994); Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (2004); Hal Draper, The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” from Marx to Lenin (1987); Alexander Yakovlev, A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, trans. A. Austin (2002); Dominic Lieven, Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals (2001); François Furet, The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, trans. D. Furet (1999); Robert W. Campbell, The Failure of Soviet Economic Planning: System, Performance, Reform (1992); James A. Gregor, The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (2000); Raymond Aron, The Dawn of Universal History: Selected Essays from a Witness to the Twentieth Century (2002); Li Zhisui The Private Life of Chairman Mao (1994/1996), excerpted in Zhisui, “The Private Life of Chairman Mao,” U.S. News & World Report, 117/14 (Oct 10, 1994):54-90; Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: The Untold Story (2005); Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine (1996);  S. Courtois, N. Werth, J-L. Panné, A. Paczkowski, K. Bartosek, and J-L. Margolin, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1999); Robert C. Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx (1961/1972/2001).

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some of these seem like secular counterparts to what we think of in terms of the Law of Consecration and such.  The overlay of Marxist–Leninist atheism on communistic ideologies rather sets those ideologies apart from the religious groups you reference here.  

As pointed out by Lord Bertrand Russell, Marxism is a religion, and therefore very much to be feared.  It only pretends to be scientific and secular.  It is in fact the ultimate opiate, and mainlining it leads to death.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for the early Latter-day Saints as communists, I dunno.  First and foremost, membership and participation in in the United Order was ostensibly voluntary.  Property ownership/distribution was handled by ecclesiastical, rather than elected political, leaders.  Josehp Smith's concepts pre-dated Marx.  The precepts pertaining to the United Order are specifically religious in nature, rather than secularly political.  :..............................

I wonder how much of the supposed "danger" arose by way of the tension between choosing one (capitalism) over the other (the United Order).  We don't really have the option of living the Law of Consecration right now, so I'm not sure members of the Church should be faulted for resorting to capitalism (though the pursuit of wealth to excess certainly has dangers).....................................

Actual communism is practiced today by the Hutterite Brethren (USA and Canada), by Mondragon (a large Basque corporation in the Pyrenees, Spain), and formerly by the Israeli kibbutz system.  All voluntary programs, as were early Christianity and the Essenes.

Actual communism pre-dated Marx