Woman who 'bought rare $100,000 Renoir for $7 at flea market' must hand it BACK to Baltimore Museum where it was stolen more than 60 YEARS ago

  • Renoir known as Paysage Bords De Seine painted in 1879
  • A Paris gallery bought the painting, and a collector later purchased it
  • The painting was loaned to the Baltimore Museum of Art, which reported it stolen in 1951
  • In 2009, a woman claims to have bought it at a flea market for $7, with a value of $75,000 to $100,000
  • Woman now ordered to return the painting to the museum because it was stolen property

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 19:03 EST, 10 January 2014 | UPDATED: 04:02 EST, 11 January 2014


The story began with one of those improbable tales of an artistic masterpiece uncovered at a flea market.

It concluded Friday, the painting still a masterpiece but the story about the flea market all the more improbable.

A federal judge has awarded ownership of a disputed Renoir painting to a Baltimore museum, citing 'overwhelming evidence' that the painting had been stolen from the museum more than 60 years ago.

The judge's decision rejected the claims of a Virginia woman, Marcia 'Martha' Fuqua, who maintained that she bought the painting at a flea market for $7, even as others, including her own brother, disputed her story.

Scroll down for video

A woman claims to have bought an original painting by French impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir at a flea market in West Virginia, paying $7 for a box of trinkets and that the painting were among them. and paid $7 for a box of trinkets that included the painting. A federal judge ruled on Friday that the woman hand it over to a Baltimore museum, which proved it had been stolen in 1951

A woman claims to have bought an original painting by French impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir at a flea market in West Virginia, paying $7 for a box of trinkets and that the painting were among them. and paid $7 for a box of trinkets that included the painting. A federal judge ruled on Friday that the woman hand it over to a Baltimore museum, which proved it had been stolen in 1951

This painting, which is only about the size of a napkin, is today worth between $75,000 and $100,000. It has been missing for over 60 years

This painting, which is only about the size of a napkin, is today worth between $75,000 and $100,000. It has been missing for over 60 years

Owner? Marcia 'Martha' Fuqua, seen left in 2010 while learning how to become a blackjack dealer in Washington, says she bought a painting by Renoir at a flea market in late 2009 for $7

Marcia 'Martha' Fuqua (seen left in 2010) maintained that she bought the Renoir at a flea market in late 2009. While the judge didn't discredit her story, he said there was overwhelming evidence that the painting had previously been stolen, meaning she could not be in possession of it

In making her ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema did not pass judgment of the truthfulness of Fuqua's story.

The judge said only that because the museum had shown the painting was stolen, it didn't matter how Fuqua acquired it — she could not legally gain possession of stolen property even if she acted in good faith.

Fuqua did not attend the hearing.

Her lawyer, Wayne Biggs, declined to comment on whether he would appeal.

The napkin-sized painting made news in 2012 when an auction company announced plans to sell it on behalf of an anonymous woman dubbed 'Renoir girl' who said she bought the painting at a West Virginia flea market in 2009 for $7.

The woman said she did not know the painting was a Renoir when she bought it, even though it was held in a frame with a 'RENOIR' panel attached.

The auction company had expected to fetch at least $75,000, but the auction was canceled when the Baltimore Museum of Art came forward with long-forgotten records showing the painting had been stolen in 1951. 

Marla Diaz, attorney for the Baltimore Museum of Art, speaks to the media outside of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia January 10, 2014

Marla Diaz, attorney for the Baltimore Museum of Art, speaks to the media outside of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia January 10, 2014

Matt Fuqua, brother of Martha Fuqua, speaks to the media outside of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia January 10, 2014

Matt Fuqua, brother of Martha Fuqua, speaks to the media outside of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia January 10, 2014

As it turned out, Fuqua's mother, who used the name Marcia Fouquet, was an artist who specialized in reproducing paintings from Renoir and other masters, and who had extensive links to Baltimore's art community in the 1950s.

In addition, Fuqua's brother, Owen 'Matt' Fuqua, told a Washington Post reporter that he had seen the painting in the family home numerous times, well before his sister supposedly bought it in 2009, though Matt Fuqua changed his story several times subsequently.

The FBI seized the painting in October 2012 and has been keeping it while the courts sorted through the ownership claims.

After Friday's hearing, Matt Fuqua said he was glad the museum is getting the painting and called his sister a liar.

'I'm ecstatic because the truth came out,' he said.

 

More...

He said a deposition he gave to lawyers supporting his sister's version of events was a lie.

'At the time, I was trying to protect her,' he said.

Matt Fuqua said after the hearing that he suspects somebody gave the painting to his mother.

'She was beautiful back in the day,' he said of his mother, who died recently.

'She had a lot of suitors.'

Matt Fuqua said he asked his mother many times about the painting's origins, but she wouldn't say.

'It was secretive, and I wasn't very good at keeping secrets,' Matt Fuqua said.

Martha Fuqua, of Lovettsville, Va., maintained throughout the case that she bought the painting at a flea market and gave a sworn statement under penalty of perjury as part of the court case.

Her lawyer tried to argue that the museum's claims were inadmissible because the documents were so old that nobody could attest to their accuracy.

But Brinkema said the museum's documentation was legitimate.

'All of the evidence is on the Baltimore museum's side. None of the evidence is on your side,' Brinkema told Biggs.

Comments (75)

Share what you think

 View all

The comments below have not been moderated.

So, is the museum at least going to give her back her seven bucks?

13
17
 Click to rate

she didn't pay $7 to anyone. her mother had possession of the painting prior to her death.

2
28
 Click to rate

She should be given a free admission ticket for the museum and least, also a cake and a cup of cappuccino at its cafeteria

16
16
 Click to rate

As the "lender" willed her art collection to the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Renoir became the museum's property at her death. The insurance company has recently transferred their rights in the painting to the museum, so that it can be returned for display. As a fellow flea-market enthusiast, I also used to think that Renoir Girl should be compensated for her loss. But evidence has since shown that the Renoir was not, in fact, purchased at a flea market, but was displayed in RG's mother's house for decades, where it was seen by friends and family members.

0
27
 Click to rate

I was wondering if the lender left it in their will to the museum. Thanks for providing the detail.

0
9
 Click to rate

The "lender" willed her art collection to the Baltimore Museum of Art at her death. Since she has since died, the museum is the rightful owner. The insurance company recently transfered their rights to the painting to the museum, so that it can be returned for display. I originally thought that "Renoir Girl" should be compensated, but it now appears that the painted was not purchased at a flea market, but had hung in RG's mother's house for decades, where it was seen by friends and family members.

0
13
 Click to rate

You just cannot trust anyone these days. Money is the root of all evil. This whole story has more twists & turns than a race track. As for the judge, I'll bet he got a bonus from the museum.

21
10
 Click to rate

Actually, it's "the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil!!.

1
26
 Click to rate

Actually, it is a LACK of money that is the root of all evil.

11
7
 Click to rate

Its not her fault it was stolen 60 years ago (she wasn't even born then) so they should compenstate her! Hugely!!!

51
19
 Click to rate

2 of 4 repliesSee all replies

No they shouldn't. It would be like if someone stole your car then sold it on to someone who forgot to hpi check it. What would happen then? The police would still class the car bought by the new owner as stolen. The car would be sized and then given back to the owner who the car belonged to initially

0
17
 Click to rate

for what? her MOTHER had possession of the painting for years prior to her death.

1
12
 Click to rate

Museums have insurance to pay them if an item is stolen. Shouldn't the Baltimore museum have to reimburse the insurance company that (surely) paid them for the loss of this painting in 1951?

6
46
 Click to rate

At least give her her seven bucks back. Geez. 😁

19
32
 Click to rate

she didn't pay $7 to anyone. her mother had possession of the painting for years. she lied about buying it at a flea market.

0
14
 Click to rate

what is needed is for it to be put on display for all to enjoy its beauty eh?

2
21
 Click to rate

This belongs to the Insurance company who paid out for the theft

6
48
 Click to rate

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Add your comment

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now