nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

10. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz

verfasst von : Bruce L. Hay

Erschienen in: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, the heir of Jewish collector Oskar Reichel sued to recover a Kokoschka painting that Reichel sold in Vienna in 1939, which changed hands several times and was eventually donated to Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. This chapter examines the adjudication of the case, which turned on a variety of state and federal legal questions relating to the application of the statute of limitations.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Bakalar v. Vavra

Nächstes Kapitel Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art

On Kokoschka, see generally Vergo (2015); Bruderlin (2014); Weidinger (1996). Reichel was also a patron of Egon Schiele, who painted his portrait in 1910. On Reichel’s role in the cultural life of the era, see Harris (2008), p. 334.

See Reagan (2007).

Raimund’s brother Hans had died in 1979, leaving everything to him.

See Complaint (filed Jan. 22, 2008), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, No. 08-cv-10097 (D. Mass.).

Answer and Counterclaim (filed May 29, 2008), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, No. 08-cv-10097 (D. Mass.).

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658 (D. Mass. 2009).

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010).

Mass G.L. c. 260 §2A.

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *5 (citing Molinar v. Western Electric Co., 525 F.2d 521 (1st Cir. 1975). This general rule derives from Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945).

Quoted in Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *5.

Id. at *6 (quoting Answer and Counterclaim).

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *6.

Blodgett also owned a Kokoschka portrait of Hans, which had the same provenance as Two Nudes. See Section 10.5 below.

Quoted in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Sep. 19, 2008), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, No. 08-cv-10097 (D. Mass.), at 6.

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 6.

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *6.

Id.

Declaration of Victoria Reed in Support of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Sep. 19, 2008), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, No. 08-cv-10097 (D. Mass.), at 2.

The court also noted that in suing for declaratory relief rather than turning over the painting, the museum was following the lead of certain peer institutions. Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *6 (“Other museums faced with similar claims in which the circumstances of a wartime transfer made the legitimacy of the transfer debatable have also refused to summarily return the artworks and, instead, sought declaratory judgments of ownership.”).

Id.

557 N.E.2d 739 (Mass. 1990).

Id. at 741.

310 N.E.2d 131 (Mass. 1974).

Bowen, 557 N.E.2d at 741.

Id.

358 N.E.2d 994 (Mass. 1976).

Bowen, 557 N.E.2d at 741.

Id.

411 N.E.2d 458 (Mass. 1980).

Id. at 619.

Bowen, 557 N.E.2d at 741.

Id.

Id. at 742.

Id. at 743.

Id.

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *6.

Id.

Id. (quoting Koe v. Mercer, 876 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Mass. 2007) (other citations omitted)).

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 7, citing Hawkins et al. (1995) and Bibas (1994).

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.2d at 7 n. 7, citing Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell, 569 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1991). See generally chap. 8 above.

Id. (citing Atlantic Finance Corp. v. Galvam, 39 N.E.2d 951 (Mass. 1942), In re Halmar Distributors, 968 F.2d 121 (1st Cir. 1992), and Keeton et al. (1984)).

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 7.

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *7.

Id.

Id. at *8, quoted in Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 8.

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *8.

Id. at 9 (quoting Answer and Counterclaim).

Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658, at *9.

Id.

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 8.

Id. at 7.

Id. at 9.

Quoted in id.

Id. (emphasis in original).

Id.

The courts’ conclusions are criticized in Kreder (2012), pp. 110–114.

Brief of Defendant-Appellant, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, No. 09-1922 (1st Cir. Sep. 30, 2009), at 46.

Id. at 49.

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 10 (quoting O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 87 (1994)).

Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213, 218 (1997), quoted in Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Id. at 10 (quoting Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63, 68 (1966)).

512 U.S. 79 (1994).

O’Melveny & Myers, 512 U.S. at 83 (quoting Erie Railroad. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)).

O’Melveny & Myers, 512 U.S. at 87.

Id.

Id. at 88.

Id.

Id. at 89 (quoting Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U.S. 77, 98 n. 41 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

O’Melveny & Myers, 512 U.S. at 89.

519 U.S. 217 (1997).

Id. at 219.

Id. at 220.

Id. at 221.

4 Wheat. 316 (1819).

Atherton, 519 U.S. at 222.

Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U.S. 275, 290 (1896), quoted in Atherton, 519 U.S. at 223.

First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 656 (1924), quoted in Atherton, 519 U.S. at 223.

Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 248 (1944), quoted in Atherton, 519 U.S. at 223.

Id.

Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 (1982), quoted in Atherton, 519 U.S. at 224.

Id.

Id. at 225.

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 10 (quoting appellant’s brief) (internal brackets omitted).

Id. (quoting appellant’s brief).

Id.

IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 325 F.3d 1188, 1193 (10th Cir. 2003), quoted in Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 10.

Id. at 11.

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 592 (1982), quoted in Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 11.

Id.

This was related to but distinct from the argument, rejected a few years earlier by the Ninth Circuit in Orkin v. Taylor, 487 F.3d 734, 739–41 (9th Cir. 2007), that federal law created an independent cause of action for the recovery of art lost to Nazi persecution. See Section 5.3 above.

539 U.S. 396 (2003).

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 11 (quoting American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 421 (2003)).

100

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 12.

101

Id. Here the court implicitly distinguished the case from Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2009), in which the a state statute of limitations that singled out Nazi-looted art claims was found invalid under the foreign affairs preemption doctrine. See Section 6.3 above.

102

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 12–13 (quoting Holocaust Victims Redress Act, Pub. L. No. 105-158 § 202, 112 Stat. 15, 17–18 (1998)).

103

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 13 (quoting U.S. Dept. of State, The Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets, Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (Dec. 3, 1998)).

104

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 13 (quoting Vilnius International Forum on Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Assets, Vilnius Forum Declaration (Oct. 5, 2000)).

105

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 13.

106

Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference, Terezín Declaration (June 30, 2009), quoted in Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 13.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id. (quoting Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 420).

112

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 13–14.

113

Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 425–26).

114

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 14.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id. (quoting United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979)).

119

Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d at 14.

120

Id.

121

Id. (quoting American Association of Museums 1999).

122

In the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, enacted several years after this case came to a close, Congress determined that to “further United States policy as set forth in the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, the Holocaust Victims Redress Act, and the Terezín Declaration,” state statutes of limitations would be preempted by a federal limitations period beginning with a claim’s actual discovery by the claimants. Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, Pub. L. 114–308 (Dec. 16, 2016), § (3)(1). See Chap. 15.

123

Dunbar v. Seger-Thomschitz, 615 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2010).

American Association of Museums. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Providing Information to the Public About Objects Transferred in Europe During the Nazi Era. Accessed July 1, 2017. http://www.aam-us.org/docs/default-source/professional-resources/nepip-recommended-procedures.

Bibas, Steven A. 1994. The Case against Statutes of Limitations for Stolen Art. Yale Law Journal 103: 2437–2470.

Bruderlin, Markus. 2014. Oskar Kokoschka: Humanist und Rebell. Munich: Hirmer Verlag.

Harris, Constance. 2008. The Way Jews Lived: Five Hundred Years of Printed Words and Images. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Hawkins, Ashton, Richard A. Rothman, and David B. Goldstein. 1995. A Tale of Two Innocents: Creating an Equitable Balance Between the Rights of Former Owners and Good Faith Purchasers of Stolen Art. Fordham Law Review 64: 49–96.

Keeton, W. Page, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert W. Keeton, and David G. Owen. 1984. Prosser and Keeton on Torts. 5th ed. Saint Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2012. Fighting Corruption of the Historical Record: Nazi-Looted Art Litigation. Kansas Law Review 61: 75–137.

Reagan, Gillian. 2007. Dealer with the Devil. Observer, September 11.

Vergo, Peter. 2015. Art in Vienna 1898-1918: Klimt, Kokoschka, Schiele and Their Contemporaries. 4th ed. New York: Phaidon.

Weidinger, Alfred. 1996. Kokoschka and Alma Mahler: Testimony of a Passionate Relationship. New York: Prestel.

American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003)

Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233 (1944)

Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213 (1997)

Atlantic Finance Corp. v. Galvam, 39 N.E.2d 951 (Mass. 1942)

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1982)

Bowen v. Eli Lilly, 557 N.E.2d 739 (Mass. 1990)

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000)

Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U.S. 275 (1896)

Dunbar v. Seger-Thomschitz, 615 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2010)

Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982)

Erie Railroad. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)

First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640 (1924)

Franklin v. Albert, 411 N.E.2d 458 (Mass. 1980)

Friedman v. Jablonski, 358 N.E.2d 994 (Mass. 1976)

Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945)

Hendrickson v. Sears, 310 N.E.2d 131 (Mass. 1974)

IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 325 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2003)

In re Halmar Distributors, 968 F.2d 121 (1st Cir. 1992)

Japan Line, Ltd. V. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 (1979)

Koe v. Mercer, 876 N.E.2d 831 (Mass. 2007)

Molinar v. Western Electric Co., 525 F.2d 521 (1st Cir. 1975)

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz, 2009 WL 6506658 (D. Mass. 2009), aff’d, 623 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010)

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U.S. 77 (1981)

O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994)

Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell, 569 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1991)

United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979)

United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942)

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2009)

Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63 (1966)

Titel: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz
verfasst von: Bruce L. Hay
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64966-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-64967-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64967-2_10

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"