Olga Mestrovic, the wife of an internationally known sculptor and artist, died owning a number of his works of art. Her will directed that all the artwork be sold, with the proceeds split among the surviving family members. She also owned real estate that, likewise, was to be sold. The executor, 1st Source Bank, sold the real estate to Wilkins, along with specified pieces of personal property that were in the house, such as the refrigerator, stove, and French scones. When Wilkins took possession of the property, he complained to the bank that the property was a mess. The bank said it would either hire a rubbish removal service or allow Wilkins to clean it up and pay him for doing so. In the process of cleaning up, Wilkins discovered eight drawings and one sculpture done by the artist. Wilkins claimed that he owned these items under his agreement with the bank, but the bank sought to recover them. The probate court ruled that there was no contract for the sale of the works of art. What argument do you think Wilkins made on appeal? How do you think the court ruled? Why?

  • CreatedOctober 21, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question