## Facts

- Paul von Mendelssohn‑Bartholdy owned Pablo Picasso’s “The Absinthe Drinker (Angel Fernandez de Soto).”
- Julius H. Schoeps, Mendelssohn‑Bartholdy’s great-nephew, claimed the painting was sold in 1935 under duress arising from Nazi persecution.
- The Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation acquired the painting in 1995 at a Sotheby’s auction in New York.
- In 2006 the Foundation consigned the painting for a Christie’s auction in New York; Schoeps sought to stop the sale through federal litigation, which was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
- The Foundation withdrew the painting from auction and returned it to London.
- Schoeps then sued in New York Supreme Court seeking restitution of the painting, alleging he was an heir to 12.5% of the estate and that all living heirs had assigned their claims to him, but he produced no written proof of assignments.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of standing because Schoeps was not appointed the estate’s legal representative; Schoeps appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an heir may sue to recover personal property allegedly belonging to a decedent’s estate without being appointed the estate’s legal representative.
2. Whether unverified allegations that other heirs assigned their claims to the plaintiff suffice to confer standing to pursue an estate recovery claim in an individual capacity.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed dismissal.
- The court held Schoeps lacked standing because the claim sought recovery of an asset allegedly belonging to the decedent’s estate and had to be brought by a duly appointed estate representative.
- The court further held that Schoeps did not establish standing through assignment because he provided no proof of assignments and, in any event, the cause of action remained an estate claim.
- The court did not reach the merits of whether the 1935 transaction was a duress sale or any defenses relating to later purchasers.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, claims to recover a decedent’s personal property (or to rescind a transfer of such property) are estate claims that generally may be asserted only by the estate’s executor or administrator.
- Heirs and distributees typically lack capacity to sue in their own names for property that belonged to the decedent at death and has not been shown to have been distributed to them.
- A party asserting standing based on assignments must produce competent proof of the assignments; unverified pleadings and conclusory allegations are insufficient.
- Standing is a threshold requirement; failure to establish it warrants dismissal without adjudicating the underlying restitution or purchaser issues.

## Conclusion

The court treated the restitution action as an estate claim and required formal authority to sue on the estate’s behalf; because Schoeps was not appointed an estate representative and did not substantiate any assignments, the dismissal for lack of standing was affirmed without reaching the duress-sale allegations.


Schoeps v. Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Found., 66 A.D.3d 137, 884 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dep’t 2009)