Posted on 05/26/2004 2:53:08 PM PDT by freedom44
US screen legend Elizabeth Taylor has sued the family of a victim of Nazi rule in Germany as part of a legal battle to hold on to a precious Van Gogh painting that she claims is rightfully hers.
The violet-eyed movie goddess filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against the South African and Canadian descendants of a Jewish woman who fled the Nazis who say the painting was looted from their relative and have demanded its return or a share of its sale proceeds, court documents showed today.
Double Oscar-winner Taylor, 72, says she bought Dutch artist Vincent Van Gogh's 1889 work, View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Remy at a Sotheby's auction in London in 1963, at the height of her fame.
According to the suit that names South African Mark Orkin and Canadian residents Sarah-Rose Josepha Adler and Andrew Orkin as defendants, Taylor now keeps the work in her Los Angeles mansion.
The trio contacted Taylor's business manager claiming to be heirs of Margarete Mauthner, a former owner of the painting who fled Germany after Hitler rose to power before World War II.
They have alleged the painting was looted by the Nazis, who built up a huge stockpile of valuable art works seized from Jews, a practice that has in recent years sparked waves of litigation over the ownership of art pieces.
But Cleopatra star Taylor claims the family has failed to show that the artwork was ever illegally seized from Mauthner.
"Defendants have provided not a shred of evidence that the painting ever fell into Nazi hands or any specific information concerning how or when Mauthner 'lost possession' of it," the suit states.
Taylor maintains that the catalogue from the 1963 auction at which she bought the piece stated that the painting had once belonged to Mauthner, but that it passed to two reputable galleries before it was sold to a German Jew, Alfred Wolf, who himself fled the Nazis in 1933 for Buenos Aires.
But Cleopatra star Taylor claims the family has failed to show that the artwork was ever illegally seized from Mauthner.
I would think that it would work the other way - that she would have to prove clear title to the work.
In the case of art and antiques...that would be 'provenance'.
Elizabeth Taylor has clear title--a bill of sale from a reputable company which has given its provenance.
Therefore the plaintiffs have to show some evidence that the provenance was incorrect. If they can show that the work was wrongfully taken, then it would become a matter for the court to decide proper ownership.
From the information provided it looks like Taylor has a case. If the Mauthner family cannot show that Alfred Wolf had the painting through false auspices, and if Wolf had the painting before the Nazis came to power in 1933, and Taylor can show a legal provenance dating back to Wolf, then Taylor appears to have a legally obtained painting.
I'm no expert on the law of lost wroks of fine art, but usually a person has only a reasonable period of time in whichto bring a claim, even it is valid. If Taylor had purchased the painting in a private sale and never told the public then the alleged "heirs" could claim that they had only recently discovered where their painting was. In fact she purchased it in a public sale from one of the two most exclusive art auction houses in the world. Today, or in 1963, if you wanted to check on a missing Van Gogh then Sothebys and Christies (Spelling?) would be the place you would check, to see if they had sold it, or knew of it being offered for sale. You can't just sit on your hands for 40 years while the painting appreciates and evidence to prove or refute your case is lost, then run in a sue for it.
Thank you.
I thought I knew what I meant but not the correct usage, muffble, bruffikl (usually happens when I stick my foot in my mouth!).
I assume she would have a claim against Sotheby's for selling stolen goods, if the worst allegations are true. It's not the case, btw, that all art works in Nazi hands were stolen. Some were bought quite legally in auctions and in other open ways, others were theirs by heredity or were acquired legally before the war. But, of course, many were stolen and confiscated, too. Simply saying it was this woman's before the war doesn't prove anything by itself.
An easy mnemonic to help remember the difference is the first 5 letters of the word spell 'prove'.
"Provenance is required to prove authenticity."
Very good! I'll remember that!
Again, thank you. I always like to be 'American English correct'!
You make excellent points.
The painting is Dutch. Send it back to Holland to be placed in the Rijksmuseum or in Den Haag.
Thanks to you too--I just learned a new word today.
Wednesday May 26, 7:37 pm ET
WASHINGTON D.C., May 26 /PRNewswire/ - The claimants of the Holocaust-era painting by Vincent van Gogh that is now in the possession of Elizabeth Taylor of California reacted today to Ms. Taylor's filing of a lawsuit in a California court, seeking a declaratory judgment that she is the rightful owner of the painting.
"The complaint appears to be entirely non-meritorious," said attorney Thomas J. Hamilton, of the Washington, DC law firm of Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton, PLLC. "It misapprehends the law that applies in stolen art recovery cases generally and to Holocaust-era art claims in particular. The complaint also evinces no understanding of Nazi policy to German Jews during the 1930s. It is now widely acknowledged and accepted in the art world and by recent federal legislation that German Jews sold paintings and other property during the Hitler era under circumstances that amounted to a National policy of theft."
"The preeminent artworld authority on van Gogh, Dr. J. Baart de la Faille, confirmed in his catalogues raisonnes of both 1928 and 1939 that Margarete Mauthner was the owner of the van Gogh painting during the 1930s, and a third catalogue raisonne issued in 1970 corroborated this conclusion," said attorney John J. Byrne, Jr., also with the law firm of Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton, PLLC. "A catalogue raisonne is a definitive listing of an artist's work prepared by a leading scholar. U.S. courts consistently have invoked catalogues raisonnes to decide ownership disputes to paintings such as our client's claim against Ms. Taylor."
"We have never claimed that Nazis directly took the painting off Mrs. Mauthner's wall. But we do not need to make any such showing in order to recover the painting under the 1998 federal Holocaust Victims Redress Act. The Redress Act as well as U.S. policy and law immediately after World War II have been consistent and clear: European Jews sold property during the Holocaust era under acute political pressure and economic duress and it must be returned to them regardless of whether the buyers were Jews or not, or whether or not the buyers were familiar galleries or dealers," said Mr. Hamilton.
"The ownership claim of Ms. Mauthner was registered in both the 1928 and 1939 catalogues raisonnes," Mr. Hamilton added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton PLLC
You might note post 15. Physical theft isn't the only standard. The nature of the sale in 1933 is the issue, not the Sothby's purchase. Usually these issues are settled through negotiation.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Art dealings from that period are very murky, from what I have read. Goering was famous for paying fair value or even over fair value on his trips to Amsterdam and Paris early on. As the war progressed and things turned against Germany, the Germans tended to confiscate and steal more, especially from 1942 on as the Holocaust deepened. It's an interesting historical case, a good example of why investing in European artwork that traded hands during that period is pretty risky.
Interesting...
Hmmm... I wonder how such thing might apply to other items that remain unclaimed for a long period of time...
"The violet-eyed movie goddess. . ."
Maybe at one time. I think the beautiful YOUNG actress has turned into a bit of a freak. Just ask her good friend Michael Jackson!
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.