University motion to dismiss Rose lawsuit not approved
by Alana Abramson
Staff writer
News | 10/13/09
Posted online at 9:34 PM EST on 10/13/09
The University's motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to preserve the Rose Art Museum's collection was not approved at a hearing that took place today, wrote Emily La Grassa, the communications director for Attorney General Martha Coakley, in an e-mail to the Justice.
La Grassa wrote that Judge Stahlin had allowed the plaintiffs to remain a part of the lawsuit in order to show that " their gifts to the Rose should be returned to them under theories known as equitable reversion and fraud."
Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, declined to comment on the fact that the case would continue because the judge had not yet ruled on arguments in the case.
The lawsuit, filed on July 27 by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster, seeks to maintain the Rose collection by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell its paintings would violate museum ethical codes. The lawsuit also states that the University's decision violates its commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum.
A trial date was also set at the hearing for June 29 and July 1, 2010, La Grassa wrote in her e-mail.
Jonathan Lee, one of the plaintiffs in the case and the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in a phone interview with the Justice that the attorney general's office asked to investigate the University for violating donor intent, a request to which all parties agreed.
Lee also said that such an investigation entailed the attorney general's office to obtain all documents pertaining to the Rose and that the University would have to contact the office to give them a minimum of 30 days' notice before selling art.
"I feel that the collection [of art] seems to be protected in the interim," said Lee.
La Grassa could not be reached for further comment about the investigation by press time.
Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, said that the Attorney General's investigation had been underway since last spring and that it was merely formalized at today's hearing.
La Grassa wrote that Judge Stahlin had allowed the plaintiffs to remain a part of the lawsuit in order to show that " their gifts to the Rose should be returned to them under theories known as equitable reversion and fraud."
Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, declined to comment on the fact that the case would continue because the judge had not yet ruled on arguments in the case.
The lawsuit, filed on July 27 by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster, seeks to maintain the Rose collection by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell its paintings would violate museum ethical codes. The lawsuit also states that the University's decision violates its commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum.
A trial date was also set at the hearing for June 29 and July 1, 2010, La Grassa wrote in her e-mail.
Jonathan Lee, one of the plaintiffs in the case and the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in a phone interview with the Justice that the attorney general's office asked to investigate the University for violating donor intent, a request to which all parties agreed.
Lee also said that such an investigation entailed the attorney general's office to obtain all documents pertaining to the Rose and that the University would have to contact the office to give them a minimum of 30 days' notice before selling art.
"I feel that the collection [of art] seems to be protected in the interim," said Lee.
La Grassa could not be reached for further comment about the investigation by press time.
Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, said that the Attorney General's investigation had been underway since last spring and that it was merely formalized at today's hearing.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Fred Hopengarten
posted 10/15/09 @ 4:03 PM EST
In addition to the reporting in this article, the University argued strenuously that the Rose Plaintiffs should not have access to the same documents that it required to give to the Attorney General. (Continued…)
Dennis J Solomon
posted 10/15/09 @ 6:50 PM EST
Now, the Brandeis trustees should proclaim a 'mea culpa' on the Rose Art Museum, declare its permanence under a Board of Overseers, and abandon all efforts to sell works in the collection. (Continued…)
Post a Comment