Law School Case Brief
Sotheby's, Inc. v. Shene - 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23596 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2009)
New York imposes a three-year limitations period on actions for replevin of stolen goods. This period begins when the true owner makes demand for return of the chattel and the person in possession of the chattel refuses to return it. The same rule applies even if a stolen item was acquired, and is now possessed, by a good-faith purchaser for value.
An interpleader action was brought by plaintiff Sotheby's against defendants Rod Shene, the German State of Baden-Wurttemberg, the Baden-Wurttemberg Ministry of Science, Research, and the Arts, and a German museum known as the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, for a determination of which of the defendants had title to a 16th-century German book known as the Augsburger Geschlechterbuch. Sotheby's, the Staatsgalerie, and the Ministry have previously been dismissed from the case. Now, Shene and Baden-Wurttemberg have filed motions for summary judgment. After World War II, the Staatsgalerie discovered that the book was missing from an offsite facility in Waldenburg, Germany, where the Staatsgalerie had stored certain artifacts to protect them during the war. The book appeared to have been destroyed, along with numerous other artifacts, during fighting and fires that broke out in Waldenburg toward the end of the war. At some time after the war, Baden-Wurttemberg acquired legal ownership of the Staatsgalerie and its collections. However, the parties learned that the book had instead likely been stolen by John Doty, a U.S. Army Captain who was stationed in Waldenburg. Shene, a book collector who earned a living by buying and selling used books, purchased the Augsburger Geschlechterbuch at a private auction held by Sheldon Margulis, a book dealer in St. Louis, Missouri, who had acquired the book from the family of Captain Doty. Shene purchased the book for about $ 3800. In March 2004, Shene delivered the book to Sotheby's to be sold at auction.
In its instant motion for summary judgment, Baden-Wurttemberg argues that it satisfies the standards under New York law for replevin and conversion claims. Shene asserts that Baden-Wurttemberg's claims should fail because they do not meet the requirements for replevin and conversion claims, they conflict with Baden-Wurttemberg's treaty and contract obligations, and they are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, and unclean hands. Shene also seeks summary judgment on his claims against Baden-Wurttemberg.
In a case involving the determination of which of the defendants has title to a 16th-century German book that was found missing after World War II, was German state Baden-Wurttemberg barred from filing a case of replevin based on laches?
The United States District Court granted Baden-Wurttemberg's motion for summary judgment in all respects, while it denied Shene's motion for summary judgment in all respects. The Court held that while Baden-Wurttemberg did wait nearly 60 years after the book's disappearance to begin pursuing a claim for it, it was only in 2004 that Baden-Wurttemberg even learned that the book still existed. Until then, it reasonably believed that the book, like many other artifacts with which it was stored, had been destroyed in a fire. Because it was conclusively shown that Baden-Wurttemberg owned the book at the time that Doty stole it, and because Doty could not pass valid title of the book to Shene, Baden-Wurttemberg was the legal owner of the book and is now entitled to summary judgment on its claims.
The Court also found that Baden-Wurttemberg has demonstrated that it diligently pursued claims for other objects that it believed had been stolen, rather than destroyed, and there was no reason for it to be any less diligent in attempting to recover the book. Nor was there any cognizable prejudice to Shene resulting from Baden-Wurttemberg's assertion of its claim now. Shene purchased the book even though every page of it was stamped with a page bearing the Staatsgalerie's name, and apparently failed to fully investigate the book's provenance. The Court concluded that there was no basis for finding laches in this case.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.