Menzel v. List
267 N.Y.S.2d 804, 49 Misc. 2d 300, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2204 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A thief cannot pass valid title to stolen property, even to a subsequent good-faith purchaser for value. Furthermore, the Act of State Doctrine does not apply to acts of plunder, such as Nazi art confiscations, that were committed by a party organ, outside the confiscating nation's territory, and in violation of international treaties.
Facts:
- In 1932, Erna Menzel and her husband purchased a Marc Chagall painting in Brussels, Belgium.
- The painting remained in the Menzels' Brussels apartment until March 1941, when they fled the country to escape Nazi persecution.
- On or about March 31, 1941, Nazi forces seized the painting from the Menzels' apartment, classifying it as 'decadent Jewish art'.
- The painting's whereabouts were unknown until 1962.
- In July 1955, Peris Galleries, owned by Klaus and Amelia Peris, purchased the painting from a gallery in Paris.
- On October 14, 1955, Albert A. List purchased the painting from Peris Galleries for $4,000.
- In 1962, Erna Menzel discovered that the painting was in List's possession and demanded its return, which List refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Erna Menzel filed an action in replevin against Albert A. List in a New York state trial court to recover possession of the painting.
- List, as a defendant, filed a third-party complaint against Klaus G. Peris and Amelia B. Peris (d/b/a Peris Galleries), from whom he had purchased the painting.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and this ruling was affirmed by an intermediate appellate court (the Appellate Division).
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Menzel, awarding her possession of the painting or its value, fixed at $22,500, and ruled that List was entitled to recover that amount from Peris Galleries.
- The defendants then filed a motion to set aside the jury's verdict as contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence.
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 good-faith purchaser of a painting looted by the Nazis during World War II acquire valid title as against the original owner from whom it was stolen?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, J.
No, a subsequent good-faith purchaser of a looted painting does not acquire valid title against the original owner. A thief cannot convey valid title. The court rejected all of the defendants' legal arguments. First, the statute of limitations for replevin does not begin to run until the original owner makes a demand for the property's return and the possessor refuses. Second, the Menzels did not abandon the painting; fleeing for one's life is an involuntary act, not a voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Third, the seizure was not a lawful act of war (booty), but rather unlawful plunder and pillage, which does not extinguish the original owner's title. Finally, the Act of State Doctrine is inapplicable because the seizure was conducted by a Nazi party organization (not a sovereign government), occurred in occupied Belgium (not German territory), the Third Reich was not an extant government at the time of the suit, and the seizure violated the Hague Conventions, a treaty binding on Germany which prohibited the confiscation of private property.
Analysis:
This case is a significant precedent in the area of art restitution, particularly for works looted during the Holocaust. It strongly affirms the fundamental common law principle that a thief cannot pass good title, prioritizing the rights of the original owner over subsequent innocent purchasers. The decision's detailed analysis of the Act of State Doctrine provides a clear framework for why state-sponsored plunder in violation of international law will not be recognized by U.S. courts, thereby preventing the doctrine from being used to legitimize such thefts. This ruling has influenced subsequent art law and property disputes involving stolen cultural artifacts for decades.
