I love this case.

I am told that Michigan Court Rules require that any Complaint based in whole or part on a written contract must have the contract attached as an exhibit. I presume but don't know for sure that the Federal Rules of Procedure require the same thing.

The Complaint [[thanks Lowell for posting a link to it) claims that the mural is incorporated into and made it part of the building. That makes it real property as a matter of law I believe and therefore it should be assessed on a portion of its true market value. The Assessor must determine its value and assess taxes against the artist for an appropriate value since it was painted, plus interest and penalties. If she fights an assessment or gives a small monetary value it will diminish or eliminate and damages she may claim if the owner destroys the mural.

According to her Complaint, the Act she relies on for the right during her lifetime to burden the building with her mural states that "any intentional mutilation or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation." So, let's say the owner destroys the mural. How would that prejudice her "honor or reputation?


If I were the owner I'd paint the remainder of that side of the building [[on both sides of her mural) with my own mural, just like hers, so you can't tell hers from mine. Maybe start a contest to come up with the best competing mural. Endless fun.