I watched this whole thing, it was both interesting and sad. I’m no fan of lawyers in general, (Though I do have a good friend that’s a lawyer) but I think if you look at the situation dispassionately from both sides they both have a claim. There’s one big question that neither side can answer that if they do find an answer would settle the whole thing, (how did the painting get from the estate to a dump?). I don’t think it’s fair to call Simon Murray greedy, he is only representing the interests of the family and at first saw a way to help fund the restoration of the family estate, but once he learned more about the painting and it’s history he has since decided he would rather keep it in the family, and while he may not have “owned” personally it most definitely was once owned by the family. You could look at the other side as being greedy too if you want to be cynical about it. They never knew the painting was worth anything, then thanks to Antiques Road Show they thought the painting was worth 30k, if they had taken the 70/30 deal they might have netted 30k and probably even more, but rather than take that money they never knew they had before Antiques Roadshow pointed out the value of the painting they decided to let the painting be withdrawn from auction so they might be able to get a bigger pay day in the future. Either side could be called greedy, and either side could be seen as just trying to keep what they believe is theirs, I really don’t see any villains in this story. If the Blakes gave the painting away to someone who eventually discarded it then they have no claim to it now, but if the painting was stolen from the residence then it should be returned to them. Unfortunately we may never have the answer and the painting will remain in limbo indefinitely or until one side gives in.
David
.
