Posted on 10/31/2007 5:27:21 PM PDT by SJackson
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit against actress Elizabeth Taylor for owning a Van Gogh painting that a Jewish woman lost before fleeing Nazi Germany to South Africa in 1939.
The lawsuit was filed by the Canadian and South African descendants of the original owner, Margarete Mauthner.
Taylor, 75, purchased Vincent Van Gogh's 1889 painting "View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Remy" at a London auction in 1963 for 257,600 dollars. The painting is currently estimated at between 10 and 15 million dollars.
The suit alleged Taylor must have known when she bought the painting that it had been stolen by the Nazis, and accused her of negligence.
Taylor said the painting had been listed in Sotheby's 1963 auction catalogue as originally belonging to Mauthner, and then being sold twice to reputable art galleries before it was acquired by Jewish art collector Alfred Wolf.
Wolf fled Nazi Germany to South Africa in 1933.
A San Francisco court of appeals in May had already dismissed the lawsuit, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld a lower court's February 2005 ruling dismissing the case.
Taylor should be ashamed. No matter what she knew when she bought it, she knows better now.
Forty five years later?
No way, the case was a loser.
The purchase was made in the open decades ago.
Ashamed is the word, I don't question her legal title. At her stage in life, I wonder what reward she expects this to bring her.
We seriously need to reintroduce shame into our culture. We can start with politicans and work our way up to normal people.
Nope.
It’s like claiming they owned California a hundred years ago and want it back now after transactions.
WASHINGTON and TORONTO, Oct. 29 /PRNewswire/ - Our family is very proud to have brought this Holocaust-related art claim concerning a van Gogh lost by our great grandmother in Nazi-era Berlin, and taken it to the Supreme Court of the US. We anticipated from the outset it would be a long and tough case, and were not mistaken.
Our claim, like thousands of others in recent years, was prompted by the US 1998 Holocaust Victims Redress Act and related US laws, which were premised on the necessary setting-aside of common-garden statutes of limitations. The knee-jerk application by the courts of statutes of limitation to prevent us from ever presenting our evidence in court does not disprove the fundamental legitimacy of our claim against Ms Taylor.
We have now established -- at least in California and with respect to Ms Taylor -- that these Holocaust "redress" laws were an empty promise.
We look forward to a day when the fruits of genocide-related "thefticide" are restored to their rightful owners without the unjust application of technical defences, and believe we have contributed to this ultimate goal.
Does anyone know what the facts were? Did Wolf own the painting? If so, where did it go when he went to South Africa? On the face of the description, looks like Ms. Taylor may well have acquired real legal title.
Theft is not a transaction. Coerced sales post 1933, this I believe in 1939, aren't transaction. This case apparently centered on the publicity the painting garnered years ago, not the issue of it's acquisiton by the Nazis, which is not in doubt, nor it's status from 1939 to 1963 wich is unknown. Don't know about California, but in the East and Midwest litigation over century old title and treaties aren't uncommon at all. Laws are laws, but Liz should be ashamed.
California was taken by treaty as I recall. How does that compare to the property of Jews in Europe. I don’t care how many transactions their were, unless you can show the family didn’t care at those times.
If the Nazis stole or confiscated the painting from Mauthner, then there is no legitimate subsequent title.
It is stolen property.
Liz Taylor is approaching her end. She has enjoyed the painting for 44 years.
The right thing would be to return the painting. She never “owned” it in the first place. And she can well afford to do so.
This is one of those cases where things get bit blurry.
Why "must" she have known? Did it have a big red tag on it saying "Stolen by Nazis"? Having had three owners between Mauthner and Taylor makes a pretty good case for Liz not knowing. What action (if any) was taken against the first owner of record after it was stolen?
Suing for ownership because it was stolen property and suing because the owner three times removed should have "known" are two separate issues IMHO.
IMO the Mautners owned it in 1939, it "disappeared", as though there's any question what happened in 1939 Berlin, but there's apparently no document establishing Nazi confiscation, it reappeared in 1963.
Berlin to South Africa to Canada, I can believe the heirs didn't know about this specific painting, and the courts decision is it's decision.
My impression it that the stumbling block to an agreement here was Liz, who was uncompromising in the face of the paintings obvious background.
IN my opinion the Orkins are attacking the wrong party. Taylor arguably bought the painting in good faith that she was buying a painting with a clear title.
I believe the Orkins grief should be with Sotheby’s. They did not practice due diligence in selling the painting which from what I have read was common practice with Nazi stolen art for decades.
The large prestigious art/auction houses for years bought and sold art stolen buy the Nazis ignoring the obvious facts, willingly believing bogus bills of sale and/or providence documents.
One of the reasons for the 1998 treaty was the embarassment in the western states over then trade in stolen artworks. Did Liz, or Sotheby's, know that a well know van Gogh which surfaced in 1963, having last been seen in 1939 Berlin owned by a Jew who fled Germany, might have a tainted title. If whe buys her jewelry out of the trunk of a car at the local Home Depot, maybe not, otherwise of course she knew the origin was suspect.
Yes, but Liz has the painting. Had she lost, she'd go after Sothebys
I might be confusing cases, but my impression is that Liz isn't the only rich one here, but that she turned down settlement offers. I don't know if it was the case here, but often when neither side is starving, donation to an appropriate museum is often the final resolution. How they share the tax writeoffs I don't know, but you and I foot the bill in the end.
I agree if I found out I owned a piece of art or whatever that was stolen during WWII by the Nazis not matter what it cost I would gladly give it back. She is nothing more than an elitist scumbag in my opinion.
You would think a mutually beneficial solution could be arranged, one in which both parties come out with good publicity.
You can bet if this was a conservative or a Republican who owned this painting, this would be a “cause-celebre” with calls 24/7 to “do the right thing”.
No, the point is saying that she should have "known".
She didn't buy it out of the back of a trunk but at one of the most reputable auction houses in the world.
Why they signed off on it is undoubtedly a tale that should be investigated. The fact that she did not try to hide her ownership is a point in favor of her NOT knowing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.