But Hammond was unwilling to negotiate and filed a suit to prove her ownership, claiming that Miller and Salinas are “hiring two lawyers to troll the art world and squeeze money from their distant relation.” The next day, the heirs brought a case against Hammond and Sotheby’s (the house has since been dropped from the suit), saying that the drawings are rightfully theirs and arguing that Hammond and Pasto acted unlawfully in taking them. In lieu of the artwork, Miller and Salinas are asking for $3 million — a figure that, according to Lieberman, is based on a reasonable estimate of the pieces’ value.

While the works are still technically Hammond's, the central question before the court is one of rightful ownership — and, by extension, Ramírez’s true mental state. The artist’s heirs paint their grandfather as a victim of sorts, a man who was not in a position to give away his artwork as a gift. They cast Pasto’s taking of the art as an irresponsible, even illegal move. Lieberman says, “Because he was presumptively mentally incapacitated, and because he was involuntarily committed to a state institution, as a matter of law, no one in that institution could lawfully accept gifts from him — at least without judicial intervention permitting it.” Hammond’s lawyers, for their part, say that while Ramírez was involuntarily committed, that fact “has no bearing on his ability or mental capacity to make gifts.”

Both sides now say they are nearing an agreement, though they cannot offer details. In the meantime, the 17 drawings remain at Sotheby’s, and Ramírez remains something of a mystery. The judgments made about him in his lifetime have begun to be called into question, and not just by Hammond and her lawyers; the Folk Art Museum writes in its 2007 catalogue: “Interestingly, after Ramírez died, even Dr. Pasto questioned his diagnosis and suggested that the artist was not mentally ill.” Was Ramírez a schizophrenic or simply a depressed immigrant who didn’t speak English? Did he choose not to talk because he was a recluse, or because he felt no one would understand him? About all that can be agreed upon is the quality and value of his work, which may have been the way he wanted it — for us to remain silent and let the art do the talking.