Georgia O'Keeffe's Gift

The painter Georgia O'Keeffe is famous in estate planning/probate/estate tax circles for the "blockage" discount taken by her estate after her death.  (You can read more about this issue here.) 

There's now a new controversy surrounding a gift of artwork made by Ms. O'Keeffe during her life to Fisk University, which is discussed in this article.  Actually, Ms. O'Keefe made two gifts to the University:

Gift #1: "97 works of art owned by O’Keeffe’s husband, Alfred Stieglitz, and donated by his widow to Fisk University in 1949 at the suggestion of a friend."  As the article states:

When the gift was delivered to Fisk in June 1949, O’Keeffe included a letter of transfer confirming the university would not sell the artworks. Charles S. Johnson, who was then the president of Fisk, replied saying Fisk “will not at any time sell or exchange any objects in the Stieglitz Collection.”

Gift #2: "[F]our paintings from O’Keeffe’s personal collection that she initially loaned to Fisk and later donated to the university in the 1950s."  This includes a painting entitled Radiator Building - Night, New York, which Fisk University would like to sell (possibly for $10 million).

Is the Radiator Building painting subject to the same conditions as the paintings comprising Gift #1? Does it matter that the then-President of Fisk may have agreed never to sell the painting?  If Fisk is acting inappropriately, is there anyone with standing to stop them?

These are all interesting questions.  My own take on this situation is that donors should build a little flexibility into their gifts.  Telling a charity that they may never sell a donated item can place a tremendous burden on the charity.

Comments

[Jim Gust]

If the promise to not sell is such a burden, the charity simply should refuse to accept the gift with such a stipulation. Perhaps they could then negotiate the promise--say, no sales for half a century or so.

Whatever the merits of this particular sale, there seems to be a growing problem of charities straying from the expectations of their donors. To the extent charities appear faithless, their future contributions may be impaired.