DeWeerth v. Baldinger
24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 362, 804 F. Supp. 539, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16275 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a federal district court may grant relief from a final judgment in a diversity case when a subsequent, definitive ruling by the state's highest court clarifies that the federal appellate court's prior interpretation of state law was incorrect. This constitutes an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief to prevent an inequitable result and uphold the principles of federalism established in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins.
Facts:
- In 1908, Gerda DeWeerth's father purchased a Claude Monet painting titled 'Champs de Ble a Vetheuil.'
- DeWeerth inherited the painting in 1922 and kept it in her residence in Germany.
- In 1943, during World War II, DeWeerth sent the painting to her sister's home in southern Germany for safekeeping.
- In 1945, after American soldiers had been quartered in her sister's house, DeWeerth was informed that the painting was missing and inferred it had been stolen.
- Between 1946 and 1957, DeWeerth made several unsuccessful efforts to locate the painting, including reporting it to military and German federal authorities.
- In 1957, Edith Baldinger purchased the painting in good faith in New York from the art gallery Wildenstein & Co.
- In 1981, DeWeerth discovered that Baldinger was in possession of the painting after her nephew traced it through an exhibition catalogue.
- In 1982, DeWeerth formally demanded the return of the painting, and in 1983, Baldinger refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerda DeWeerth sued Edith Baldinger in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (a federal trial court) to recover the Monet painting.
- After a bench trial, the District Court found for DeWeerth, holding her claim was not time-barred and ordering the painting's return.
- Baldinger, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (a federal intermediate appellate court).
- The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, creating a new 'due diligence' requirement under its interpretation of New York law and holding that DeWeerth's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because she had not met this requirement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court (the highest federal court) denied DeWeerth's petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Subsequently, in an unrelated case, Guggenheim v. Lubell, the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court) held that New York law does not impose a due diligence requirement on owners of stolen art, explicitly rejecting the Second Circuit's reasoning in DeWeerth.
- DeWeerth then filed a motion with the Second Circuit to recall its mandate, which the court denied without an opinion.
- DeWeerth then filed the present motion in the U.S. District Court, seeking relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subsequent, contrary interpretation of state law by the state's highest court constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) that justifies granting relief from a final federal court judgment in a diversity case?
Opinions:
Majority - Broderick, J.
Yes, a subsequent and contrary interpretation of state law by the state's highest court presents an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). The core principle of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins is that in diversity cases, the outcome should not differ substantially between federal and state courts. Here, the New York Court of Appeals, in Guggenheim v. Lubell, explicitly rejected the 'due diligence' requirement that the Second Circuit had imposed in this case, clarifying that this was never the law in New York. To let the Second Circuit's judgment stand would deny DeWeerth her property solely because she filed her suit in federal court, a result that directly contravenes Erie's mandate of preventing inequitable forum-shopping. The constitutional principles of federalism and the need to accomplish substantial justice outweigh the interest in the finality of the judgment in this extraordinary case.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant application of the Erie doctrine in the context of post-judgment relief, prioritizing federalism and equitable outcomes over the principle of finality. It asserts that a federal court's incorrect prediction of state law, when later definitively corrected by the state's highest court, constitutes an 'extraordinary circumstance' under Rule 60(b)(6). This ruling created a potential avenue for litigants in diversity cases to reopen judgments when controlling state law is clarified post-decision. However, this District Court opinion was ultimately reversed by the Second Circuit, which held that the interest in the finality of litigation was paramount, making the entire DeWeerth saga a classic case study on the tension between the Erie doctrine and the principle of finality.
