French Court Rules Lawsuit Between Monet Heirs and Wildenstein Can Proceed

Late last week, a French judge ruled that the judicial court in Rouen, Normandy, could proceed with a legal action brought by Claude Monet’s heirs against New York gallery dynasty Wildenstein & Co., according to reports in France.

The complex case revolves around a 2004 deal in which Monet’s grandnephew agreed to give a rare Monet painting depicting the artist’s father, Adolphe, to the internationally renowned Wildenstein Gallery in exchange for several less valuable paintings. The unnamed heir, who is descended from Monet’s brother Léon, agreed to the arrangement because he wanted the estate to be divided equitably between his two children despite his “very fondness” for Adolphe Monet’s paintings, Corinne Hershkovitch, a lawyer for the Monet family, said in an interview. art news.

According to the complaint, in exchange for the coveted Adolphe Monet reading in the garden (1867), French-American businessman Guy Wildenstein gave his family five paintings by artists such as Pierre Bonnard, Alfred Sisley, and more importantly another Monet landscape entitled Marine Corps, Amsterdam (1874). However, when the family tried to sell the latter’s Monet painting in 2019, they were surprised to find it was severely damaged. Experts finalize original wooden canvas supports Marine Corps, Amsterdam, The canvas had been lost, and at some date prior to 2004, the canvas was “transferred” to another stretcher, deforming in the process.

“The family felt very humiliated to be fooled like this,” Hershkovich said. For about 20 years, Guy Wildenstein’s father, the late influential dealer Daniel Wildenstein, “had been trying to lure the artist’s descendants.” [who passed away in 2008] Selling a magnificent portrait of my father,” she added. “It was impossible for the Wildenstein Company to ignore the fact that the pictorial layers of Monet’s painting, amsterdam marinesseverely damaged,” she insisted.

Late last year, Guy Wildenstein resigned as president of the gallery, which was founded in 1875 and specializes in Old Masters and Impressionist works. In 2024, he was convicted of tax fraud and accused of concealing masterpieces in his collection from authorities. He was succeeded by his son David.

Wildenstein has not been accused of damaging any paintings, but the Monet family claims the gallery was “dishonest in its dealings,” which led to its acquisition of Monet’s painting, which depicts the Impressionist father sitting in the shade of a sunny garden tree. The Monet family therefore wants the 2004 agreement annulled and “at least” compensation for the value of the damaged items. Marine Corps, Amsterdam Painting, estimated at $3 million.

Hershkovich argued that if the original deal was invalidated due to an error in the estimated value of one of the paintings involved in the controversial 2004 deal, Wildenstein could be forced under French law to return the painting by Monet’s father, and the Monet family would also have to return the five paintings in exchange.

There’s a problem with that last scenario: According to the gallery, it has sold the portrait of Adolphe Monet to billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison. The Art Newspaper.

Before the May 28 ruling confirmed that the Rouen court could proceed with proceedings, Wildenstein & Co. had questioned the ability of the French judicial system to handle the case and argued that the legal dispute should be tried in New York. Their request was denied because the plaintiffs were considered to be general public consumers of art rather than professional art buyers and because the plaintiffs also resided in Normandy. The gallery now has until October 13 to file its defence.

art news We reached out to Wildenstein for comment but had not heard back as of press time.