More on the Nuns, Lawsuit, and the Bouguereau

Back in March on posted on the AW Blog about a Bouguereau painting purchased after an appraisal from an upstate New York monastery (click HERE to read original post). David Hewett of Maine Antique Digest updates the story in the September issue. The basis of the story was the nuns had the painting appraised, and then restored at the cost of $14,000.00. They then sold the painting to intermediary who was working Santa Fe dealer Mark Zaplin. The nuns sold the painting for $450,000.00. According to the MAD report, Zaplin invested another $50,000.00 in the painting and sold it for $2 million. Then came the intrigue, collusion charges, extortion claims and lawsuits.

Sotheby's at one time had looked at painting and deemed due to past history, restoration and need conservation it was not interested in selling at auction.

Hewett reports

Unfortunately, the newest suit filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany, burst a few balloons with its denial that the nuns and the bishop were victims. It defends the price paid for the Bouguereau painting as "fair and reasonable" taking into consideration the subject and the condition. It alleges that two art dealers, Paul Dumont and Robert Boyle, conspired to extort money from dealers Mark LaSalle and Mark Zaplin, and when LaSalle spurned their entreaties, they carried out a systematic plot to destroy his reputation. The March 12 suit charges art dealers Robert Boyle and Paul Dumont with defamation of character, attempted extortion, and conspiracy. It charges that Bishop Clarence Kelly made slanderous and defaming statements, both to groups and individuals, and caused them to be circulated through a number of media outlets.The suit claims that Boyle and Dumont made the false statements to Bishop Kelly and his congregation in order to provoke the suit the latter filed against LaSalle and Zaplin. It charges that Bishop Kelly "failed to verify facts" and staged interviews and press conferences in religious settings, while appearing in religious vestments, which was deliberately to give an air of honesty and integrity to his statements.

Hewett continues

The defamation suit states that representatives of Sotheby's did view the Bouguereau painting in April 2006. Paragraph 36 of the suit reads as follows: "On behalf of a prospective buyer, representatives of Sotheby's auction house looked at the painting in Williamstown sometime in April, 2006. After its history, the nature of the restoration performed to date and the need for further restoration were disclosed to the Sotheby's representatives, they concluded that the painting would never be auction quality and no purchase offer was made." Sotheby's had not confirmed that statement by our deadline. Mark LaSalle's version of the events following the sale of the Bouguereau to Mark Zaplin claims that, once the news about the $2 million sale got out, and after an undisclosed commission had been paid by Zaplin to LaSalle and Dumont, Dumont and Boyle (whose presence in the case is never fully explained) "began to execute on a scheme to extort money from Plaintiff and Mr. Zaplin which included, among other things, the following actions…."

To read the full article, click HERE.