Tapies
Denney Collection
|
Lessons from the Denney Collection
: 8
20 September 1990 -The Denney Children
are sent a copy of the Spanish will with an explanatory letter…
|
|
The Spanish Will
|
On 20th September 1990, the widow sent each of the three
Denney children a copy of their father’s will in Spanish, without the affidavit
(39). The will declared Denney’s family circumstances,
including the names of his children and had a single,
significant conditional clause: |
"Sin perjuicio de los derechos legitimarios que según su
Ley Nacional pudieran corresponder a sus tres citados hijos, o descendientes,
instituye heredera unica y universal de sus bienes, derechos y acciones,
a su esposa Doña Celia-Mercedes Royde Smith"
"Without prejudice to the forced rights that according to his
National Law could correspond to his three cited children, or descendants,
institutes his wife …as unique and residuary legatee of all his property,
rights and actions."
|
The clause appears to be saying that although he makes his wife legatee,
this must not prejudice the rights of the children, should they prove to
have any rights under his national law. The question therefore is: do they
have any rights under his national law, a subject to which we will return.
The will was not sent by the executor named in the will as might have
been expected,(40), but by the widow, and without
the above-mentioned affidavit. Nor was the affidavit sent on to the children
later. In retrospect, this seems a bit odd, because, after all, the affidavit
was the specific authority for the residuary legatee, whereby she claimed
the entire estate as hers. So why, if the affidavit demonstrated so conclusively
the rights of the widow with respect to the children, was it not sent to
them, so that they could read it themselves and get the definitive message?
Instead of the affidavit, there was a carefully worded explanatory letter
from their stepmother in English which said of the will: "This is in essence
the same as my father’s will, wherein he left everything to my mother (the
Paris flat being an arrangement previous to and separate to the will) (41).
For obvious reasons of keeping tax to a legal minimum, we had some years
ago made a property separation (42), so that Anthony’s
will is based on the castle and land here (43).
Remaining goods and chattels were put in my name (44).
This means equally that all duties and charges both legal and municipal
fall to me….."
The Dallas collection was not mentioned. The letter went on to say:
"nevertheless…I think your hope of benefit should not be disappointed,
so that by smoothing some path, you should remember your father with gratitude.
My proposal is to sell some things I know to be least dear to Anthony’s
heart to raise what I hope would be a helpful sum for you. If this idea
is acceptable to you please let me know and at the same time send me the
number of your bank account…."
The letter implied, without actually saying so, that the children had been
disinherited. But the will, quoted earlier, did not say this. They might
prove to have rights, or not to have rights, as the case might be. There
was only one way to find out and that was to take legal advice and, if
necessary seek to find an answer from the Spanish Courts. In the event,
it has taken over five years for them to be able to put the question to
the Spanish Supreme Court and it may take another year to obtain a definitive
answer.
Before deciding whether or not to try to establish their rights under
Spanish Law the children set out to find any missing assets. It was soon
discovered from the Tate Gallery, with which Denney had always had strong
connections, that Mathieu’s ‘Battle of Hastings'
was at the French Institute in London and a Knapp at a school in Gloucestershire
and that six pictures had been sent to an undisclosed destination in 1970.
Eight months later, when examining the Denney file at the Tate closely,
a note was discovered that read: "sent to an undisclosed destination in
TEXAS". Letters were written at the end of June 1991 to a number of Texas
museums, but not in great expectation of a reply, for twenty years had
passed. In mid July the DMA told the children that 23 pictures had been
on loan to them until quite recently, but that they had sent them to Toulouse
on the instruction of Anthony Denney. It was at this point that the DMA
realised for the first time that Denney was dead.
Section 7 - Index - Section
9 
Section 8 References
39 If this document supported the case that the
children had been effectively disinherited, why was it not sent attached
to the will?
40 his Spanish lawyer
41 Presumably this means that the flat at 29
rue des Ste Peres, Paris was given by Anthony Denney to his wife.
42 A property settlement was made concerning
items in the castle on 21 May 1987.
43 The letter said that their father’s will
was "based on the castle and the surrounding lands", but the will it said
nothing of the kind. It was conceivable that the contents had been passed
on to the widow in their father’s lifetime, but what had happened to all
the pictures? He wasn’t an extravagant man, surely they could not all have
been sold to finance their father’s retirement?
44 A property separation was made and notarised
on 21 May 1987. It relates to an inventory of items listed as being in
the castle on that date and nothing else. The list of items, which includes
a number of named works bought by Denney in the 1950’s - between ten and
twenty years before his second marriage - are claimed to have been bought
with Denney’s wife’s own means. |
Section
7- Index - Section
9
Paper presented for discussion
at the Institute of Art and Law Seminar on Art
Loans and Exhibitions, at the Courtauld Institute, London, May 13 1996
Web Pages and text © A.F.Anderson
1996, 1997, 1999
Version 2.2 May 23 1999
antonya@antonya.ace.co.uk
