Jewish family appeals ruling in Nazi-seized masterpiece

[Lite Beer]

Jewish family appeals ruling in Nazi-seized masterpiece

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Jewish family has appealed a federal California judge's ruling declaring that a museum in Spain is the rightful owner of a painting seized from a woman fleeing Nazi Germany in 1939.

The Cassirer family filed an appeal of U.S. District Judge John Walter's ruling on Friday.

Walter ruled earlier this month that the museum owns the 1897 Pissarro masterpiece under Spanish law. He dismissed a lawsuit against the museum by the Cassirer family, whose ancestor was forced to give up the painting to the Nazis.

An attorney for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid has said the institution acquired the painting in good faith and has had it on public display for more than 20 years.

The family's attorney argues that the museum's position is morally and legally wrong.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-20

[stevenl]

Why is this in a US court?

[Kerryd]

Yeah I was just about to write that as well.

What is a US court doing ruling on a painting held in a Spanish Museum that was (allegedly) seized from a woman fleeing Nazi Germany 76 years ago ?

Personally I think they'd have had better luck trying their case in a German court, where they probably should have gone in the first place anyways.

[ABCer]

Agree with above comments: "Why USA Court?"

On the other hand if the Cassirers live in USA IMHO it can be filed in EU Court after it was filed in USA. (???)

And finally, why is it that words 'legally and morally wrong' go together with names like Thyssen, Krupp, Broun, etc.?

My memory must be playing tricks with me...

Edited June 20, 2015 by ABCer

[zaphod reborn]

To answer your question on jurisdiction, the family could choose to file in either a US Federal Court or the EC Court. The US court has jurisdiction because the plaintiff lives in LA. The EC court would have jurisdiction because the painting is located in Spain. The Court ruled that the Spanish Museum bought the painting in good faith (a bona-fide purchase for value without knowledge that the painting was stolen, or otherwise coerced out of the plaintiff's possession). It seems the plaintiff's delay in claiming the painting was stolen supported a decision in favor of the museum, so that the museum didn't lose its purchase price.

[Seastallion]

I would side with the family because "receiving stolen property" is usually the receiver's lookout. Caveat emptor.

Time lapsed would have a bearing, I guess.

Perhaps the family should seek redress from whoever sold it to the museum.

[NeverSure]

Here is one appeal if you want to read all 79 pages, LOL. Link The case has been in progress for many years now.

Statements of jurisdiction indicate that initially The Kingdom of Spain was one of the defendants. Under international law that would give another country jurisdiction, probably the domicile of the plaintiff as all defendants appear to be in Spain.

The main arguments seem to be that the plaintiff's claims are time barred. Most jurisdictions have some law, often called "adverse possession" that rules a property belongs to the possessor if it's been in the hands of the possessor for a certain amount of time, and the possession has been open and notorious. This is a good law that precludes someone from claiming to own your house after you bought it in good faith and lived in it for years.

FWIW this is being tried under California and US law because California has accepted jurisdiction and the defendants haven't disputed that.

Cheers

[h90]

Why is this in a US court?

Anyway USA controls Europe

[jackanapes]

one has to assume the cassirers are a jewish family living in America and unless they have proof that their relative was forced to part with the painting to the Nazis I don't think they have a ghost of a chance at getting it back.

[Seastallion]

Here is one appeal if you want to read all 79 pages, LOL. Link The case has been in progress for many years now.

Statements of jurisdiction indicate that initially The Kingdom of Spain was one of the defendants. Under international law that would give another country jurisdiction, probably the domicile of the plaintiff as all defendants appear to be in Spain.

The main arguments seem to be that the plaintiff's claims are time barred. Most jurisdictions have some law, often called "adverse possession" that rules a property belongs to the possessor if it's been in the hands of the possessor for a certain amount of time, and the possession has been open and notorious. This is a good law that precludes someone from claiming to own your house after you bought it in good faith and lived in it for years.

FWIW this is being tried under California and US law because California has accepted jurisdiction and the defendants haven't disputed that.

Cheers

Similar to "squatter's rights" that is in Westminster style jurisdictions.

We might be hearing this "adverse possession" in upcoming ICC trials too, when the chestnuts start coming forth.

Sorry for the family...as I said before, they could possibly chase the seller.

[Seastallion]

one has to assume the cassirers are a jewish family living in America and unless they have proof that their relative was forced to part with the painting to the Nazis I don't think they have a ghost of a chance at getting it back.

I don't think that is an issue. They obviously have a valid claim or the court would have thrown it out ages ago and not had to excersise a decision based on completely different law.

But it does bring up a point....that of provenance. How could the museum have "bought the painting in good faith" if the work was a stolen item? Surely the museum did extensive checks?

[NeverSure]

Similar to "squatter's rights" that is in Westminster style jurisdictions.

We might be hearing this "adverse possession" in upcoming ICC trials too, when the chestnuts start coming forth.

You'll never make an attorney. Adverse possession requires the element of "permission". The possession has to have been permissive. There can not have been claims in the interim. The clock on adverse possession stops upon objection.

The painting has been on public display for a long time without objection, which meets the definition of permissive. At least that is the argument of the possessor.

Cheers

Edited June 20, 2015 by NeverSure

[Jingthing]

Seems some of those Nazis had good taste.

As far as this case, being ethically right and something being legally enforceable are not the same things.

It seems to me you'd need a lot of specialized legal expertise to have an informed legal opinion on this kind of case. (Not me.)

Edited June 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

I don't have an opinion. I just read enough of the complaint to find out what the parties opinions are based on arguments. I also read what the court's opinion was. I saw why the plaintiff lost and it was on the element of time. The court ruled that it was time barred. That of course is being appealed. The amount of time is actually being appealed as there is dispute about how long it was and what the law was at the time.

This is a civil case. Criminal actions can't be time barred. Fraud is a crime. I don't see where fraud on the part of the seller is claimed. I see an action for the claim and a defense of time. That's what it appears to have sorted out to.

I didn't read nearly all of it but rather read the salient parts which are in the first sections. They spell out the claimed facts, the court's decision including why, and the argument upon appeal. It appears to be all about time.

[zaphod reborn]

This is a civil case. Criminal actions can't be time barred. Fraud is a crime. I don't see where fraud on the part of the seller is claimed. I see an action for the claim and a defense of time. That's what it appears to have sorted out to.

Most criminal cases do have a statute of limitations within which a prosecution must be initiated. However, in both civil and criminal fraud cases, the statute of limitations doesn't begin to run until the plaintiff or the state are aware of the fraud and can identify the defendant.

[Seastallion]

This is a civil case. Criminal actions can't be time barred. Fraud is a crime. I don't see where fraud on the part of the seller is claimed. I see an action for the claim and a defense of time. That's what it appears to have sorted out to.

Most criminal cases do have a statute of limitations within which a prosecution must be initiated. However, in both civil and criminal fraud cases, the statute of limitations doesn't begin to run until the plaintiff or the state are aware of the fraud and can identify the defendant.

It appears that the plaintiff(s) were aware ages ago.