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.
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.
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.
Bad ruling ...
I think that Van Gogh sucked as a painter. His painting here is not worth anything to me.
Now if we were posting about a work of someone such as John Singer Sargent, I might have a different opinion.
I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse.
It was a good decision that gave it to Taylor. A decision otherwise would open the floodgate for all kinds of reparations by people who were not involved originally to people who were likewise not personally involved.
I say, cut it in half and give both parties a half. King Solomon.
They should have title insurance for art.
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 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?
It was the Van Gogh letters that caused a stir, not the paintings.