Posted on 05/02/2019 12:05:17 PM PDT by BenLurkin
A 15-year court battle has seemingly come to an end after an L.A. federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Spanish museum which acquired a $30 million painting looted by the Nazis is the work’s rightful owner, and not the San Diego Jewish family of a woman who surrendered it 80 years ago to escape the Holocaust.
In his 34-page ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art when it took possession in 1993.
According to the lawsuit first filed in L.A. federal court in 2005, the Nazis confiscated the painting from Lilly Cassirer, whose Jewish family owned a prominent art gallery in Berlin in the 1930s. Lilly Cassirer was among the last of the family to flee ahead of the Holocaust. As she tried to leave Germany, a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa she needed. Her sister, who remained, was later killed in a Nazi death camp.
The painting was purchased directly from Pissarro’s art dealer in 1900 by the father-in-law of Lilly Cassirer, who eventually inherited it and displayed it in her home for years. When she and her family fled the Holocaust in 1939, she traded it for passage out of the country.
For years the family thought it was lost, and the German government paid her $13,000 in reparations in 1958
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
"found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art "
Try that argument when you're stuck with a counterfeit $100 bill.......Or ANY other stolen property!!!!!
Deals under such extreme duress are ALWAYS invalid!
Semantics. The painting was apparently the price of the exit visa. No painting no exit visa. Yeah, it was a probably a bribe. But in the end she got the bargain she negotiated. Either way she was going to lose the painting. She bought 60 years of life by surrendering it when she did. She also got $13,000 in reparations from the German Government in 1958. That was probably the value of the painting at that time. You could buy a pretty nice house for $13,000 in 1958.
they took the painting by causing extreme duress- there was no choice- other than die- but the nazis would take the painting anyways-
The mafia used to work that way- and it was a crime- they ‘offered’ protection- and the owners could either ‘accept’ the offer or die- The mafia would take products for free from the stores under this ‘agreement’ but still it was a crime-
Coercion voids a contract. But I’m sure the Nazis appreciate your support
“No evidence the museum knew it was looted”.
Well, they know it NOW!
It belongs to the family.
see my last reply- and also post 22-
“Duress makes a contract voidable
Duress is a means by which a person or party can be released from a contract, where that person or party has been forced or coerced into the contract.If this coercion can be shown to be true then the contract entered into cannot not be considered a valid agreement....
To be successful in a claim for duress there must be effectively no choice for the party other than to comply with the demand.”
She “traded” it for an exit visa. Don’t be fooled, it was confiscated.
Huh? So a woman who loses a child to kidnapping loses all rights to her child?
~~~
I phrased my question badly. I was trying to convey my incredulity that the judge really seems to be saying that the circumstances about how the painting left their possession was meaningless. It seems very important, which is why I used the word duress.
Shouldn’t she get the painting back?
PROVANANCE ... Don't buy a work of art without it.
ML/NJ
Yep... Antisemitism rules the courts these days...
They aren’t supposed to buy stolen goods, I understand that.
My point is, the mete fact that they “didn’t know it was stolen” does not confer legitimate title! It does mean (if true) they won’t be prosecuted, but they have no claim to ownership. This is black letter law.
Well, this is bullshit.
If you are in possession of stolen property the cops don’t care. It’s stolen and it’s not yours.
This is the same Spanish government who claims the treasure from ships lost centuries ago.
“Sounds like she got a good deal.”
So “your money or your life” is binding, legal, exchange?
I guess we’ve got to let muggers keep the money now.
She gave the painting up a gun point. Sounds like piracy to me.
As an aside, since a valid contract presupposes and requires two willing parties, doesn’t this mean the “social contract” is null and void? Hm.
Looking at the case, it turns on Spanish law, which was specifically written to screw victims of the Shoa.
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.