Posted on 10/31/2007 5:27:21 PM PDT by SJackson
It would appear that the painting wasn't stolen off the wall by the Nazis, but the owner was a Jewish German who most probably sold the painting at a really cheap discount while trying to get out of Germany while she still could. It's a difficult case where the law technically is right in favoring Ms. Taylor, but it would be very interesting to know how much Ms. Mauthner received for selling the painting while trying to get out of Nazi Germany. If morals and ethics were involved, her heirs should receive at least a very substantial portion of today's going rate for that painting.
The second link should have been titled “Elizabeth Taylor sues for right to van Gogh painting”.
As if she hadn’t hoarded enough loot from her previous 20 marriages.
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.
By the statement above, I am led to believe that the original owner abandoned her property. Regardless of which regime was in power at the time, all governments give themselves the power to redistribute the property of their citizens.
Anyone care to prove me wrong?
You'll note that at the end of WWII the US government (among others) seized German assets in the United States.
Our title to the property was good in the sense that the German government's title to Jewish owned property in Germany, etc. was bad.
To the degree any German property titles were respected by the victors it would have been a totally unexpected surprise to the ancients.
People who purchased title from the Nazis found out they weren't good guys to do business with because, lo and behold, their legal writ was erased by the Allies.
Tough, eh?!
Taylor should be ashamed. No matter what she knew when she bought it, she knows better now.
I don’t feel sorry for those people. They had 40 years before the lawsuit. Get Real!
This is hitting you hard. It is a painting that she purchased legally. Now let’s get back to real life now. lol.
Think harder,use colamine..;-)
Then we agree. I have no problem with them suing her for the return of their property it was the claim that she "must have known" that bothered me. That kind of thing could set a dangerous legal president.
But she knows now. Rightfully it's not hers, legally it is now. I'm ok with that, but I find her actions interesting.
Once again I think we agree. I would find it laudable if she, after having won, would turn around and say that now that she knew she would return it to the family.
But I do understand her not settling the case. I wouldn't, because that would be admitting that I willingly and knowingly received stolen property. Or maybe I am giving her too much credit.
Insufficient information to judge the reason for the delay or the family’s circumstances after the war to determine why they should have sued earlier or if they had enough knowledge to do so. I don’t get any realer without more facts.
A reference, perhaps, to the caves of the Vatican, which are rumored to contain many centuries’ worth of serious goodies.
Mostly stolen goodies...
It was the Van Gogh letters that caused a stir, not the paintings.
You're right, I haven't slept for weeks.
Thanks for the contribution to what is an interesting topic.
Yes, you're wrong, the United States is a party to the 1998 treaty, as are about 3 dozen nations. Transactions like this post early 1933 in Nazi Germany and Nazi occupied Europe are asumed to be invalid. That's simply American law, post 1998.
It's an interesting human dilemna. Whether she knew or not in 1973, it was an accepted transaction at that time. Not really something a buyer would give a lot of thought to. And she was buying it from Sothebys. Nice if it could have been settled with a museum donation or something
No, legally a sale of that nature would be deemed illegal under the 1998 treaty, anything post 1933, when Jews lost citizenship, employment, and property rights. This apparently turned on statutes of limitation, which I think is an interesting topic, and one which I don't know much about.
Similar suits were filed in Europe, the location of the confiscations, immediately post WWII. Generally unsuccessful in local jurisdictions. Opening up the market.
This family was fortunate in escaping, but many didn't, and if there are heirs, they're often descendents, I think these are grandchildren, and probably not particularly well informed about their families European possions a half century ago. I don't know how this one came to light, but it's only been a couple years that the art world has been cataloging missing art. So it's quite possible that a child or grandchild perusing databases could discover a parent or grandparents possession.
When does the clock start? 1998, entry on the database, time of discovery?
Liz could have taken her money and invested in other fine art had she known this was someone else’s and she herself would not have potentially lost millions of dollars herself.
By these people not making timely claims, they lost their right to compensation.
They seemed to have no problem trying to cost Liz Taylor millions of dollars.
She originally bought the art in good faith.
If those with a grievances were not aggressive in getting this taken care of decades ago, it is not Liz’s fault.
I think this is a totally correct decision.
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.