Case No. ZZ20D65691

. The parties acknowledge that they have purchased certain items of artwork together prior to the marriage, which they hereby consider to be their joint property. These items include works of art by Tracy Emin, Candida Hofer, David Sherry, Terence Koh, and photographs by Yul Brenner. The parties acknowledge that Michael has gifted a Marc Chagall painting to Alvina prior to the marriage and this painting shall be considered Alvina’s Separate Property for purposes of this Agreement and Alvina has gifted a Kirshner drawing to Michael which shall be considered Michael’s Separate Property for purposes of this Agreement.Any other artwork purchased (or received by exchange) in the joint names of the parties during the marriage, or by a business entity in which each party is a member, and prior to an Event of Marital Dissolution, shall be considered the joint property of both parties. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Marital Dissolution, all artwork defined as the joint property of both parties shall be valued by a mutually agreed upon appraiser and divided between the parties in as equal a manner as possible, with the party receiving a greater value of artwork paying any sums necessary to the other party so as to equalize the values, subject to any financing attributable to such art or any loans which the parties have agreed in writing were used to acquire such art. For example, if the total value of the artwork considered to be the joint property of the parties at the time of an Event of Marital Dissolution is $5 million and, after dividing the various pieces of artwork between them, Michael has $3 million worth of art and Alvina has $2 million worth of art, Michael shall pay to Alvina the sum of $500,000 so as to equalize the value of the property being divided.”Under this provision, for a work of art to be “considered” as joint property, it must have been bought in joint names. This suggests a degree of formality in the acquisition which simply was not present. All of the art was purchased in the name of the husband, but he does not take any point about that. The schedule of art has 45 items on it. 32 of the items are mutually agreed by the parties to be jointly owned. Three are agreed to be gifts from the husband to the wife. One item is agreed to be owned exclusively by the wife. One item (number 28 on the schedule) is agreed by the wife to have been a gift from her to him (notwithstanding that he maintains it is jointly owned). This leaves eight items where there is a dispute. For seven of these items the wife says they are jointly owned while the husband says that they are his alone. For one item the husband says that it is joint while the wife says it is hers alone. 83.Under cross-examination there was this exchange between the husband and Mr Cusworth KC:“A. …There is no "we". There is never any emails from Alvina where she basically express ownership in any of these pieces. So you can't just go around and ask for ownership, because you're going with somebody in a store, in a gallery and buy a piece of art and you say, "I like it". I mean this is where I feel the cost element of this -- I feel it is abusive, because it's against common sense. Either you own it or you don't own it. At least a point where you say: I have ownership of this art. Q. What happened to the first 34 items on the list then, Mr Fuchs? Why are they, as you accept, jointly owned?A. Because I gave them to her and I was saying that to her.Q. You gave them to her?A. Yes.Q. As gifts?A. No, as where we bought them together and we have consents, but I feel I'm acting here a little bit like a hungry crocodile. The more you offer and the more you give, the more you are asking.Q. Forgive me, Mr Fuchs, your art portfolio in 2019 was worth £29 million, wasn't it, very valuable, and these are only tiny pieces around the edge; yes?A. Yes.Q. So we are not talking about somebody biting your arm off to grab large chunks of your portfolio. We are talking about a few pieces that she says she was particularly interested in and bought with you and discussed with you while you were married?A. Yes, and this.”84.The husband was unable to explain to me why, if the great majority were recognised as being jointly owned, these seven items were different. In his final submissions, Mr Cusworth KC stated that he would not resist a finding by me that all of these items were jointly owned.85.In my judgment this is a particularly sterile dispute given that the parties have agreed how the pieces will be physically distributed. The parties are battling for me to make findings purely for personal financial advantage.86.In my judgment there is no solid evidence showing why the eight disputed items should be treated any differently to the 32 items where there is no dispute that they are to be treated as joint items.87.I therefore rule that the eight disputed items are all to be treated as jointly owned with the result that half of their value will be used in the Outcome Schedule. The wife seeks the sale of the Mike Kelley piece as she believes that its value is more than the $1,083,000 in the expert’s report. I decline so to order. Its value will be taken at $1,083,000, and it will be retained by the husband.