Today’s NY Times has a story about a painting stolen stolen by the Nazis (actually it was a forced sale although that didn’t play a role in the ruling) and now in a Spanish museum. The heirs of the original owner sued in California and the judge ruled that he had to apply Spanish law since that’s where the possession was. Apparently Spanish law provides that a purchaser in good faith who was unaware of the provenance owns it. The judge criticized the museum for not investigating the question. But the law as described gives a purchaser a big incentive to not investigate too closely. Which is why I feel the law is wrong. Under common law the purchaser of a stolen good has no ownership rights and therefore will feel bound to investigate more thoroughly.
No, under the common law a bona fide purchaser for value can get good title by buying from a fraudster or a thief.
Even if the two systems happened to have different views on the good-faith purchase of stolen goods (thanks Northern Piper), why should Spanish legislators give a shit about common law, any more than common law places give a shit about Foral, civil or Roman laws?
Yes. Basic law school contracts and criminal law.
At common law the question is whether or not good title transferred. If it did, then the original owner is SOL, even if it was a voidable transfer.
I’m more interested in why a lawsuit between heirs of property stolen in Europe and a museum in Europe would be filed in California, and why the plaintiffs would have standing in California, and how the court would have jurisdiction over the museum, and how competent jurisdiction doesn’t apply its own laws rather than foreign laws.
Assuming the previous questions are legitimate, how does a judge competently understand foreign law, in a language he likely doesn’t understand, and without years of legal training in that particular region of law. Law school isn’t just memorizing laws and precedents; it’s about understanding the entire history of what led to where we are. You can’t just choose a single law out of the larger corpus and apply it, because there are other laws and code that might affect it.
I’m really curious. Any links to articles, in particular, this case?
The suit was filed in California because that’s where the heirs live, according to El País (link in Spanish; in English, link to BBC since they don’t limit articles). The picture is the property of the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum in Madrid; the Baron’s widow is a Spaniard, they spent a lot of their time in Madrid and they created the museum in 1993 to show their art collection. The Baron had bought it in New York in 1976.
So at the very least we have: Spanish law, California law, NY law and French law since that’s where the initial forced purchase took place.
Choice of forum is governed by fairly technical rules. I am not totally familiar with the specifics, but I can easily see the parties having standing in California.
Well one way we avoid that is by having a choice of law and forum clause in a contract.
When that does not decide the matter, and foreign law is a fact in issue in a case (a somewhat common occurance).
- You have answered your question. Law school and practiceis aboit picking up legal skills. Those skills are employed. At its very basest, the Court simply decides what the foreign law answer is, same way it would decide a question of domestic law. If the point is settled, they follow it. If its not, they make their best guess.
- As foreign law is here a question of fact, the parties will lead evidence on it, like they do on any other question. Witnesses, especially expert witnesses, (usually qualified practitioners in that jurisdiction) will appear and depose. The Court will look at the evidence presented and come to a decision.
No different than expert or technical evidence on anyother matter.
So… does the German government consider itself the successor to the Nazi regime?
Seems like the original owner was basically coerced to sell the painting at an absurdly cheap price for her family’s exit visa from Germany in 1939, as they were Jewish. The kicker though, is that the accounts were locked that contained the payment (such that it was) for the painting.
Could the family reasonably sue the German government for the value of the painting, since they coerced them, and never even made good on the original crap payment?
Isn’t it likely that a statute of limitations would apply?
It’s true that it gives the buyer an incentive to not investigate too closely, but the opposite stance results in no buyer, even in good faith being ever safe. For instance, you buy something at an auction from a perfectly respectable company, but it so happens that the seller bought it from someone who bought it from someone who stole it, and the item you bought can be repossessed at any moment even though neither you nor even the person you bought it from has done anything wrong.
The original owner may be happy about it, but in the end you’re the one paying for someone else’s wrongdoing. The only party responsible is the thief, he’s also the only one who benefited from the theft, and so should be the only one the original owner has a recourse against. If for whatever reason he can’t be made whole by the thief (say, the thief is dead), it’s too bad for the victim, but there’s no moral reason why you should be the one compensating the victim by giving him the item you paid good money for.
Only, as Balthisar says, the letter of the law isn’t the only thing to be considered. In this case the family seems to have begun directly by suing (bad movement both culturally and legal-system speaking [1], made even worse by suing in a foreign country [2], made even worse by that country being the US [3]), they do not seem to understand the difference between “the Kingdom of Spain” and “a museum owned by a foundation managed by a ministry of the Kingdom of Spain”… their expert advisors don’t seem to have advised them very well. While those three factors didn’t affect the decision of the American judge, they certainly affected the response of the Spanish museum.
1: in Spain the first move would have been a nice letter to the museum, possibly followed by not-so-nice letters, by an instancia (official letter or request) to the ministry in charge of the foundation which owns the museum and/or by attempts to use arbitration, depending on the museum’s response or lack thereof. In fact, if the suit had been filed in Spain, one of the judge’s first requests would have been “show me the letters”.
2: foreign intervention, yay! And before anybody jumps: yes, “foreign intervention” certainly came up when Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón apparently decided he had jurisdiction over the whole world.
3: foreign intervention cubed.
The original owner got reparations in 1958 for an assessed value of $13,000
Which looks like a small sum today but art market prices have skyrocketed since then.
So the heirs have no case against the German government, and the claim against the Spanish museum look a bit like being paid for the cake and having it.
The money they got from the German government wasn’t to settle the title, but compensation for the forced surrender. Under the terms of the payment, they did not surrender their property right to the painting. It wasn’t a quit claim and did not transfer title to the German government.
Found an interesting blog from a law firm that comments on the decision. It explains the difference in Spanish law that Hari was asking about in the OP. It’s not that the issue of bona fide purchaser for value.
Rather, under Spanish civil law, which the US court was applying, there is adverse possession for personal property (“movables”). Since the Spanish museum had been openly displaying the painting for several years, it satisfied the requirement for adverse possession and acquired good title that way, even if there were questions about the chain of title.
That is a difference between civil law and common law. There’s no principle of adverse possession for personal property under the common law. However, the common law might have reached that same conclusion on the basis of limitation periods.
https://www.grossmanllp.com/district-court-rules-against-claimants-nazi-looted-pissarro