Under Swiss law, a purchaser of stolen property acquires title superior to that of the original owner only if he purchases the property in good faith. Tr. 19 (von Mehren). A bad faith purchaser of stolen property never acquires title. Id. at 20. As Professor von Mehren explained at trial, to conclude that a purchaser did not act in good faith, a court must either find that the purchaser actually knew that the seller lacked title, or find that “an honest and careful purchaser in the particular circumstances would have [had] doubts with respect to the capacity of the seller to transfer property rights.” Id. at 24.Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts Inc., 717 F. Supp. 1374, 1400 (S.D. Ind. 1989).
Swiss law presumes that a purchaser acts in good faith. Id. at 26. However, a plaintiff seeking to reclaim stolen property may overcome this presumption. Id. To do so he must show that suspicious circumstances surrounded the transaction which should have caused an honest and reasonably prudent purchaser to doubt the seller’s capacity to convey property rights. Id. If the plaintiff shows that the circumstances surrounding the transaction should have created such doubt, then the defendant purchaser has the burden of establishing his good faith. A purchaser establishes his good faith by showing that he took steps to inquire into the seller’s capacity to convey property rights and that such steps reasonably resolved such doubt. Id.
In Newman v. Stuart, the Supreme Court of Mississippi stated “[i]n this state, as in most states, the law is that neither the thief of stolen property nor his transferees, can convey any title or property right to such property. A bona fide purchaser of stolen property acquires no title or interest therein.” [Citations omitted.] In sum, Mississippi case law indicates that whether an individual is a bona fide purchaser for value is irrelevant to a stolen property analysis. Even someone who parted with valuable consideration, and otherwise meets the requirements of a bona fide purchaser for value, cannot acquire proper title to stolen property.Eisenberg v. Grand Bank for Savings, 70 Fed. App'x 765 (5th Cir. 2003).
permits an artist who uses reasonable efforts to report, investigate and recover a painting to preserve the rights of title and possession...History, reason and common sense support the conclusion that the expiration of the statute of limitations bars the remedy to recover possession and also vests title in the possessor.A dissent called the ruling a shot in the arm for art thieves. This "common sense" was also rejected by New York courts and ones probably everywhere else. That is New Jersey for you.
Of course, Dave usually fights the return vigorously. But if Bob's originally ownership is clearly established, he gets it back.
posted by alms at 6:16 PM on December 9, 2009