nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

11. Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art

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 Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, heirs of Paul and Elsa von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy sued two New York museums to recover paintings that the couple had sold while being persecuted by the Nazis in Berlin in 1935. This chapter examines the, adjudication of the legal and factual issues of the case, which settled on just as trial was to begin.

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 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston v. Seger-Thomschitz

Nächstes Kapitel De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary

See Museum of Modern Art and Guggenheim Museum (2007). See also Guggenheim Museum (2009), which sets forth the museums’ findings in more detail. For journalistic accounts of the case and the surrounding history, see Feuer (2007), Vogel (2007), Lacayo (2009), and Sontheimer (2011).

In 2006, Schoeps had brought a lawsuit for another one of the five Picassos sold to Thannhauser, which was dismissed on the ground that he had not been properly appointed to sue on behalf of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy’s estate. Schoeps v. Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation, 851 N.Y.S.2d 74 (Sup. 2007).

The museums took the position that Paul had made a gift of the art collection to Elsa upon their marriage in 1927, and that the art was therefore not part of his estate when he died in 1935.

Museum of Modern Art v. Schoeps, 549 F. Supp.2d 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 594 F. Supp.2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In this ruling, the court repositioned the parties, making the heirs the plaintiffs and the museums the defendants.

Another triable issue, in the court’s view, was whether the paintings had belonged to Paul or Elsa at the time of the sale, which would determine whose heirs could claim the paintings.

In a separate ruling, the court denied a television network’s request to broadcast the trial proceedings on the ground that the presence of cameras might affect jurors’ impartiality. Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 599 F. Supp.2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 603 F. Supp.2d 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941), holding that in diversity cases federal courts should apply the same law that state courts of the forum would apply.

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 465. On choice of law in the New York courts, see Section 9.3.1.2 above.

Id. (citing Zurich Insurance Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 1065 (N.Y. 1994)).

Id.

Id. at 466.

Id.

Id. (citing expert report on German law).

Id.

This general rule is based on Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945).

See Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell, 569 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1991). On the demand-and-refusal rule, see Section 8.4 above.

Bakalar v. Vavra, 819 F. Supp.2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). See Section 10.4.1 above.

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 468. On the doctrine of laches, see generally Fort (2009). On the doctrine of unclean hands, which allows a court to deny equitable relief to a party that has behaved inequitably, see Anenson (2010).

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 468.

As noted earlier, a claim brought by Schoeps against a possessor of another Picasso sold to Thannhauser was dismissed on this ground. Schoeps v. Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation, 851 N.Y.S.2d 74 (Sup. 2007).

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 466.

Id. at 466–67.

See Section 9.3.1 above.

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 467.

Id. at 468 (citing American Law Institute 1971, § 245).

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 468.

Id.

Schoeps, 594 F. Supp.2d at 534.

Id.

See Schoeps, 603 F. Supp.2d at 674–76. On confidentiality provisions in settlements, see generally Anderson (2006) and Moss (2007).

Id. at 674.

Id.

Id. at 675.

Id.

Id. Had they been public agencies, the court noted, the museums likely would have been obliged by freedom-of-information laws to disclose the settlement’s terms. See id. (citing Washington Post Co. v. New York State Insurance Dept., 463 N.E.2d 604 (N.Y. 1984)). “It is hard to see why institutions that proclaim their public status and that seek and receive public support should view themselves as not owing a similar obligation, even if one is not imposed by law,” the court stated. Schoeps, 603 F. Supp.2d at 675.

Schoeps, 603 F. Supp.2d at 675.

Id.

Id. at 675–76.

Id. at 676.

Id. (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 785–86 (3d Cir. 1994)). On the debates over confidentiality provisions, see the symposium introduced by Anderson (2006).

Schoeps, 603 F. Supp.2d at 676.

Id.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). See Section 4.3 above.

Schoeps v. Freistaat Bayern, 27 F. Supp.3d 540, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Id. at 545–46.

Id. at 546.

Id. The heirs did not appeal.

American Law Institute. 1971. Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law. Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute.

Anderson, Joseph F., Jr. 2006. Secrecy in Litigation: The Healthy Debate Continues. Chicago-Kent Law Review 81: 301–304.

Anenson, T. Leigh. 2010. Limiting Legal Remedies: An Analysis of Unclean Hands. Kentucky Law Journal 99: 63–118.

Feuer, Alan. 2007. A Lawsuit Will Determine the Fate of 2 Picassos. New York Times, December 18.

Fort, Kathryn E. 2009. The New Laches: Creating Title Where None Existed. George Mason Law Review 16: 357–401.

Guggenheim Museum. 2009. Guggenheim Museum Settles Litigation and Shares Key Findings. Press Release, March 25. https://www.guggenheim.org/news/guggenheim-settles-litigation-and-shares-key-findings (visited June 15, 2017).

Lacayo, Richard. 2009. Settled Question? Time, February 3.

Moss, Scott A. 2007. Illuminating Secrecy: A New Economic Analysis of Confidential Settlements. Michigan Law Review 105: 867–912.

Museum of Modern Art and Guggenheim Museum. 2007. Statement from the Museum of Modern Art and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation Regarding Claims on Two Picasso Paintings in Their Collections. Press Release, December 7. http://press.moma.org/wp-content/press-archives/news/Schoeps_FinalLetter.pdf (visited June 15, 2017).

Sontheimer, Michael. 2011. One Jewish Family’s Battle with a Munich Museum. Spiegel Online, October 18.

Vogel, Carol. 2007. Two Museums Go to Court over the Right to Picassos. New York Times, December 8.

Bakalar v. Vavra, 819 F. Supp.2d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

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

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

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941)

Museum of Modern Art v. Schoeps, 549 F. Supp.2d 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); restyled Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 594 F. Supp.2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), 599 F. Supp.2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), 603 F. Supp.2d 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994)

Schoeps v. Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation, 851 N.Y.S.2d 74 (Sup. 2007)

Schoeps v. Freistaat Bayern, 27 F. Supp.3d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Washington Post Co. v. New York State Insurance Dept., 463 N.E.2d 604 (N.Y. 1984)

Zurich Insurance Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 1065 (N.Y. 1994)

Titel: Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art
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_11

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"

Premium Partner