[SJackson]

A lot depends on whom the burden falls, I suppose. Proving coercion in an undocumented transaction 60 years on may be difficult. I would be inclined to give the heirs the benefit of the doubt, but the law may specify otherwise.

Well, Liz filed the lawsuit. As I understand it, in cases like these it's pretty well understood that Jews in Germany were under duress from 1932-33 forward. Personally, I wouldn't want to enter a courtroom to prove this wasn't the case in this instance, particularly if I were a public figure. Should have been an easier way to solve the problem.

[KellyAdmirer]

I am smiling a bit at this, because your heart clearly is in the right place. Nobody wants to justify something the Nazis did to hurt the original owner, if that is the case. I will merely point out that Taylor is the one with the bill of sale, from a reputable gallery which presumably did its own due diligence back in 1963 to ascertain true title. Proving those things presumably will meet her particular burden of proof.

The heirs, God bless them, are the ones contesting the suit, so they have a burden of showing that some mitigating factor overcomes Taylor's showing of ownership. From the facts in this thread, they only have proof of prior ownership, a transaction of some kind during a turbulent and frightful period, and the vague insinuation that something underhanded happened. That is a rather slim reed on which to base one's hopes of acquiring a multi-million dollar painting. The burden may be on the heirs to prove something wrongful was done, or else their position would have to be that all transactions involving Jews from that period are void, and I've never seen that proposition in the law.

As an example of just leaping to conclusions being a bad idea, suppose the lady emigrated to neutral Sweden or Switzerland and sold the painting there. Could her heirs argue coercion? What if it was sold at auction in June 1939 in Amsterdam or Paris. Coercion? The heirs argue that it doesn't matter that the buyer was a Jew, but I tend to think that does have at least some significance, in the sense that if it had been sold to Himmler that would raise some serious red flags. Could she have sold the painting in 1932 and simply kept the sale quiet despite the official registrar cited by the heirs? I think that something has to be proven before you strip a current owner of her title. Perhaps the heirs do have some evidence. That is just my opinion, the law may be different.

It's a tough case, the kind that buys lawyers their summer houses in the Hamptons. I agree with you, some kind of settlement makes sense. This suit by Taylor may be her way of clearing the air of a whispering campaign against her and forcing everybody to sit down and talk about it.