HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:

If I buy something at a church auction which I know to be of great value, it is my good luck. I owe nothing to either the church or the donor.

If the organizers of a church auction buy something they know or suspect to be of great value, it is morally the church's good luck. It is the church who can decide whether or not to share with the donor--the organizers have no claim to any of it.

The organizers of a church auction are agents of the church and have a moral obligation to fetch the highest dollar for the church and NOT to skim off the top! If they even suspected the church had come into possession of something of value, they should have held it for the church to investigate.

Moral--thou shalt not steal from the church.

A local "Free Clothing" center here had to close because the volunteers were taking all the good stuff.

Mary Jan Rosenak
Madison, Wisconsin
P.s. I love your column!

My thought is that the people who bought the painting recognized it for it's value, and should have told the donor that it was valuable. They chose though to be thieves, especially since two of them were able to see the merchandise first being organizers of the fund raiser. They should keep what they each contributed to buy the painting and the rest should be distributed to the donor and the church because they chose to be thieves, and deceive the donor of the value of his contribution. BUT, they will get away with the scam because of the way our world is today.

Dorothy Morris
Bountiful Utah
The Salt Lake Tribune

Dear Mr. Seglin,

Your comment on the the Mary and Jesus painting that garnered almost $500,000 at auction struck an interesting nerve with me. Though it's not a severe one, and I'm as close as one can get to being a card-carrying Agnostic, I feel that the right thing would be to donate at least SOME of that newfound wealth back to the church. It'd just be a nice for someone to do.

Most churches these days certainly could use the money for operating costs alone. The three people who bought it obviously could afford the already large some of $3200 to buy it in the first place, so I kind of thought that they probably weren't necessarily hard up for cash themselves to begin with. In fact, a little small voice in the back of my mind tells me that it may have been considered an investment to reap possible rewards later.

If I wanted to get "down and dirty," since two of these "donators" happened to be the organizers of the auction, wouldn't that be a possible conflict of interest? I may be presumptuous to go that far, so I'll iterate the idea that giving at least SOME of the money back to the church would be the right and nice thing to do, and leave it at that.

Sincerely,

Bill Jonke
Anaheim, CA
The Orange County Register

Dear Mr. Seglin,

I live in Yorba Linda, Ca and read your article about the 14th Century triptych in the Orange County Register.

The party that donated the picture certainly had the opportunity to check the value of the gift they were donating, before they donated it. If it had only been worth $10, I don't think the residents would have refunded the funds to the parties that purchased it. As for some residents feelings that they should donate some of their windfall to the original donor and the church, they are welcome to donate whatever they would like but they don't have any right to claim what someone else should do. Just the mere suggestion is taking away the opportunity for the purchasing parties to make a kind gesture if they wanted to. Maybe the purchasing parties originally thought of sharing some of the windfall, but wanted to handle it privately. People are always very generous with someone else's money. They need to learn they have no right to give what isn't theirs to give. 

Debbie Adamo
Yorba Linda, CA

In response to your request for evaluation of the donation increase, my response is:

There is no legal question involved; the  purchase of the donated painting was legal, neither the purchaser or the donor had any knowledge of the actual value of the donation.
The question of whether the purchaser has any ethical obligation to share the sudden intrinsic value with the donor is answered in the negative. As there is no legal obligation, and neither of the parties knew each other there does not arise any moral basis to share.

The donor probably got his reward with a tax deduction.

R. G. Marcarelli

The purchasers of the painting of Mary and Jesus should enjoy the windfall with a clear conscience. The donor and the church surely must have been happy to receive the money for the painting. I'm sure the donor included the $3,200 on his tax return.  Before he donated the painting, it was his responsibility to have his art work appraised if he hoped to get the most tax advantage for his gift. He neglected to do so. He must take the "loss" for his lack of forethought. Both the donor and the church each accomplished its mission. Flea Markets exist for just such wonderful experiences.

Marmee Temple, Roswell, GA - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I would suggest the people who bought and sold the art give 10% of their profit to the church where they bought it, roughly $46,600. I don't think the donor should get any more than a $3,200 tax deduction. He or she could have had the art appraised before the gift was made.

Harvey Brickley
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Regarding the huge profit made by those at the church auction in Dublin, N.H.: I strongly believe that a portion of this money should be given back to the donor of the painting. Even the rule of law insists that the judge look to the intent behind a person's actions, and ethics should be even more merciful than law. Did the donor truly intend to give a six-figure amount to this church? Did this donor have knowledge that this item was of such high value? Should three people prosper, in the name of supporting a church, by outwitting a sincere donor who wanted to make a charitable gift to a good cause? No. Give some of this money back.

Bonnie Atwood,
Richmond, Va.,
Reader of the Richmond Times-Dispatch

Re the painting donated to a church auction in Dublin, NH, which was bought for a song by organizers of the auction and subsequently sold at Sotheby's for nearly $500,000.

The major ethical error occurred before the auction was held. Since the two organizers sold the painting almost immediately, it can be assumed they had a good idea of the possible value of the piece at the time it was donated. This was the time when any ethical person would point this out to the donor and suggest having an independant valuation done. Not doing so cheated the donor AND the church, and both should be reimbursed for their loss.

This was not a commercial sale where it is the seller's responsibility to know the value of what they are selling. The donation was made for a good cause, and the church auctioned it as a fund-raiser for (presumably) a charitable cause.
The purchasers took unfair advantage of both the donor and the church community.
I advise them to leave town.

S. Bradbrook
Richmond, VA
Richmond Times-Dispatch

I think that these people are in no way ethically required to give some money to the person who donated the painting. They could do that, and it would be a nice thing to do. But it's perfectly all right that they don't share the money.
Delia Atwood,
Richmond, Va.,
reader of Richmond Times-Dispatch

Valuable painting:

Let's go over the facts:
1. The painting was donated by someone who was under no time constraint and could have at any time sought a professional evaluation of the painting‚s worth.
2. The church who sold the painting received $3,200 ˆ enough to open their eyes to the possibility that it was worth more. Not knowing the details the sale, I don‚t know what time constraints they were under to complete the sale. I will presume that they could have cancelled the sale at anytime before it was final.
3. Neither the donor nor the church is worst off then if the painting was worth nothing.
4. This is not like a case where someone buys a used purse and discovers a diamond ring inside. All parties here knew that a painting ˆ nothing more and nothing less - was being sold.
5. The people who paid $3,200 invested their time ( and presumably money) investigating whether the painting had greater worth. Like all investments the outcome was not certain. They are now profiting from their investment ˆ why should they share that profit with those who did not share in the making the investment?
It would be out of character for a church to complain after the fact that they were under paid. In the gospel of Matthew 20:1-15, there is a parable about a landowner who hired men to work for him. Some he hired early, some mid day, and some an hour before quitting time. He promised each the same wage and paid what he promised. Jesus rebuked those who thought it unfair that all where paid the same. The condition there and in this case are the same: the payment made was the agreed upon amount and it is not right to expect more favorable terms later.
Why should the painting‚s buyers donate any of their profit to the selling church? It would only make sense if they share the same religious convictions. Perhaps the buyer will make a donation to their own church or a other charity that they share an affinity with.

Paul Carpenter

My 15-year-old son and I read about the case of the valuable triptych donated to the church auction in NH and the question of who should get the money. We read it in the August 1 edition of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. We live in South Hill, Va.

We agreed that the person who donated the triptych should be given a percentage of the sale-- one-fourth at the most, since there are now four people involved, or a slightly smaller percentage to compensate for the buyers' initiative and time in sending it to Sotheby's to sell. An alternative would be to divide it into fifths, with one fifth going to the church.
If this purchase had been made in a larger community where the original donor could not be tracked down, it would be understandable that the buyers would not make the effort to do so. But given the size of the community, the buyers' lack of integrity will not only make for hard feelings between the original owner and them, but within the whole community. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is an ethical stand for toddlers, not adults. The message these buyers give to the citizens of their town, should they fail to compensate the original owner, is that they are not ultimately responsible for their actions or their neighbors. This is a stance that we don't agree with, perhaps because we live in a small town where people still look out for one another.

Very truly yours,

Marcy McDonald
Ian Kursel

Good question but NOT THE question that should be the topic. The proper
issue is whether the 3 people share their wealth with the Church!
(Accountants think the question is whether the ogiginal donator gets a
deduction of 3200 489,600.)

You misssed this one completely.

Gary Jackson
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta Journal Constitution

Mr. Jackson,

Thanks for reading the column and taking the time to write to me.
I agree with your assessment of the question. In fact, the column, I end the
question with this comment:
"Others are insisting that the buyers have an ethical responsibility to
share some of their newfound wealth with the person who
made the donation -- who had no idea about the painting's worth -- and the
church."
So the question about whether to share the wealth with the donator and the
church is there.

Thanks again for being touch.

Best,

Jeffrey Seglin

Regarding the "Found Art: auction of painting"

Go back to the beginning of the story. The painting of Mary and Jesus had been donated for sale at a church auction which was a fundraiser for the church. The person who donated the painting intended that the value of the painting be donated to the church.

Three people paid $3,200 for the painting and subsequently had it auctioned by Sotheby's for $489,600.

The buyers do have an ethical responsibility to share the profit: with the church.
I would recommend that the 3 persons who received the money from the Sotheby's auction would each keep 10% for themselves, give 10% to the donor of the painting, and give the remaining 60% to the church to honor the fundraiser intention of the donor.

Margaret Ann Holt
Stafford County, Virginia
(Fredericksburg area)

Dear Mr. Seglin,

Your web address says it all "right thing". While not a lawyer, I am a
parent of two 20-something young adults. In a nation that seems to be
drowning in a sea of greed I see my young two young adults making choices
that reflect thoughts beyond their own realm to consider the consequences of
their choices and actions.
Because two of the buyers were involved in organizing the fund-raiser, they
had an obligation to the organization they served: their church. They
should have advised both the donor and the church of the potential value.
The ethical choice would have been to auction the painting for the church at
Sotheby's. The donor would have had the full value for IRS purposes and the
church would have realized the full worth of the item.
Had these people simply been buyers at the auction, they would have had no
obligation to the church. Instead, two of the people gained financially as
organizers. Obviously, they knew the value of the item. Why else would you
auction a religious painting with a company such as Sotheby's? They
benefited from insider trading. If the purpose of the auction was to raise
funds, usually the case, the church members did not fulfill their obligation
to their church. Instead, they picked the pocket of their parish.
Money has a way of providing us with an opportunity to show our true
character. In this instance, lack of character.

Cindi Shields
West Jordan, UT
The Salt Lake Tribune

Mr. Seglin:

I use the "Mr." because I believe that you are a professor with an MA/MS or better. If that is the case I would be more correct in addressin you as "Professor".
Anyway, in answer to your column of 08-07-07 that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune about the sale of the picture that eventually sold for about 100 times the purchase price: Go back to basic contract law. A contract is an agreeement between two individuals/groups in which ownership of an item is transfered for certain consideration, in this case a certain amount of money. If the picture is later determined to be of a greater value then the present owner is the one to reap the rewards.
Look at it this way. If I bought a house thirty years ago for $50,000.00 and made all of the payments and paid for all of the upkeep and then sold the house for $150,000.00 why would I owe the previous owner any share of the appreciation of the property?
The seller had ample opportunity to have the painting appraised before sale. There is ample case law that backs up the buyer when an item is bought at a bargain and later found to be valuable and sold for a large profit.
Basicly there is NO moral obligation to compensate the original seller. If the uyrer wants to make a donation to the church that sold him the painting, that is up to him. That is the only obligation he has to the church.
Kevin Greer
West Jordan, Utah

I read your column in the "Salt Lake Tribune".
I live in Salt Lake County.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.