By Amanda Buonaiuto
Introduction
The legal case Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago, brought by the heirs of Fritz Grünbaum, a prominent Jewish cabaret performer and art collector. Grünbaum's heirs sought declaratory judgment, conversion, and replevin in connection with the alleged theft of Egon Schiele's masterpiece, Russian Prisoner of War (1916).
The plaintiffs claimed that the artwork was unlawfully seized by the Nazi regime during Grünbaum's imprisonment in the Dachau Concentration Camp. While he was held in captivity, he was coerced into signing a power of attorney, granting his wife, Elisabeth Herzl, the authority to complete Jewish Property Declarations under duress. This manipulation led to the outright confiscation and sale of Grünbaum's entire art collection, with the proceeds benefiting the Nazi Party.
A significant development occurred on November 24, 2023, when the Southern District of New York granted The Art Institute of Chicago's motion to dismiss. The court's decision raises complex legal questions surrounding the restitution of stolen art, historical injustices, and the responsibility of cultural institutions in preserving the legacy of victims of Nazi persecution.
Procedural History
The legal saga of Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago traces its origins to 1999, when Leon Fischer and Milos Vavra, Grünbaum's heirs, discovered that Grünbaum's art collection had survived World War II. This occurred when the District Attorney Robert Morgenthau seized Schiele's Dead City III (1911), a work in Grünbaum's collection, from the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). The painting was on loan from the Leopold Museum Private Foundation. However, MoMA contested the seizure, invoking New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, which exempts works of fine art from seizure while on display in a museum. The court accepted this argument, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt by Grünbaum's heirs to reclaim the painting.
Another legal dispute faced by Grünbaum's heirs involves the drawing Seated Woman with Bent Left Leg (Torso) (1917). In the 1960s, David Bakalar, a North American sculptor acquired this art piece for his private art collection, and in 2004, he consigned it to Sotheby's for sale. The artwork was later auctioned. However, the purchase was halted after the heirs contested the title of the drawing. In 2006, the possessor of the artwork filed a lawsuit to clarify the title in the Federal Court in New York. The District Court maintained the title and ownership in the possessor's favor, resulting in no restitution for the Grünbaum's heirs.
On January 24, 2006, as part of the Bakalar litigation, the Grünbaum's heirs made a demand to the Art Institute of Chicago, requesting the return of the painting Russian Prisoner of War'. This was because the artwork in Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago and the piece in Bakalar v. Vavra were both part of a common collection before they were eventually sold to Bakalar (Grünbaum's Schieles sold by Mathilde Lukacs to Gallery Gutekunst & Klipstein in 1956). The defendant declined to return the artwork.
In 2012, Fischer appointed Reif and Fraenkel as executors of his estate in a last will and testament. Three years later, Reif, Fraenkel, and Vavra filed an action against the art dealer Richard Nagy. A verdict was reached to return two works of art painted by Schiele, Woman in a Black Pinafore (1911) and Woman Hiding Her Face (1912) to the Grünbaum heirs.
The legal disputes involving Grünbaum's heirs continued in 2022, with evidence suggesting that seven Schiele art pieces belonging to Fritz Grünbaum had been trafficked through New York. Legal civil suits were initiated in the New York Supreme Court. In an innovative approach, almost all of these prosecuted institutions, except for The Art Institute of Chicago, acknowledged that the art pieces were, indeed, looted and opted to voluntarily return them. This scenario led to the dismissal of the legal claims, with the exception of the Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago case.
Legal Issues
A fundamental question that arose in the Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago proceedings revolved around the applicable statute of limitations. Despite arguments invoking both New York and Illinois laws, the court, operating under diversity jurisdiction, adhered to New York's statute of limitations.
Applying New York's statute of limitations, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are time-barred. As the plaintiffs in the case seek the return of the artwork, rather than damages, the shorter statute of limitations of three years applies. The clock begins to run after the plaintiffs have demanded return of the chattel and such demand has been refused. In this case, it began on February 3, 2006, when the defendant refused by email to return the artwork during the Bakalar litigation. Therefore, it expired on February 3, 2009, long before the plaintiffs brought the action in New York state court in December 2022.
Additionally, it can be asserted that the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (HEAR Act) does not save the plaintiffs' time-barred claims. Typically, the HEAR Act reinstates causes of action that might otherwise have faced time limitations, allowing for a six-year revival period after the Holocaust victim or heir initially becomes aware of the identity and location of a Nazi-stolen artwork. Nevertheless, the HEAR Act does not revive causes of action in instances where the prospective claimant or a predecessor-in-interest was aware of a potential claim after 1999, had the opportunity to file a timely claim, but opted to defer bringing the claim for more than six years. Here, in the Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago case, Grünbaum's heirs were aware of the whereabouts of the artwork, yet did not initiate a suit in time to reclaim the painting Russian Prisoner of War.
In summary, the claims arose after 1999 (on February 3, 2006); the applicable limitations period was three years and elapsed on February 3, 2009, before the HEAR Act was enacted on December 16, 2016.
Not only are the plaintiffs' claims time-barred, but they are also impeded by the doctrines of laches and collateral estoppel. Consequently, the plaintiffs are prevented from relitigating certain issues already addressed in the Bakalar v. Vavra case. Despite the party's arguments about differences between the cases and the artworks involved, as well as differences in the collectors, the court underscored the parallels in the issues at hand.
Highlighting the similarities, the court pointed out that the Grünbaum heirs were already cognizant of their claim, akin to the circumstances in Bakalar v. Vavra, where David Bakalar, the plaintiff, sued Milos Vavra and Leon Fischer, the Grünbaum heirs who now serve as the plaintiffs in the current case against the Art Institute of Chicago. The court noted that in both instances, there was an inexcusable delay in taking action and Bakalar suffered prejudice as a result of this delay. Therefore, the application of collateral estoppel and laches stands firm, further complicating the pursuit of the plaintiffs' claims.
Court's Decision
Based on the legal arguments presented, on November 24, 2023, Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the defendant and granted the Art Institute of Chicago's motion to dismiss. Consequently, the restitution of the artwork Russian Prisoner of War to Grünbaum's heirs did not take place.
Conclusion
The procedural history of the Reif v. The Art Institute of Chicago case reveals a complex web of legal disputes dating back to 1999, with various attempts by Grünbaum's heirs to reclaim stolen artworks. This legal saga exposes the challenges inherent in seeking restitution for art stolen during periods of historical atrocities.
While the court's decision to dismiss the case aligns with legal technicalities, it fails to address the broader moral imperative of rectifying historical injustices.The court's decision to dismiss the case on the basis of time-barred claims and laches is contentious. The application of laches and collateral estoppel, based on similarities with the Bakalar v. Vavra case, may be seen as overly rigid, potentially limiting the pursuit of justice in unique circumstances.
Therefore, the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive legal framework that considers the exceptional circumstances surrounding Holocaust-related art restitution is notable. Reevaluating the legal issues presented in such cases and ensuring they do not unduly restrict the pursuit of justice would be essential steps toward a more just and fair solution: embracing the examples set by the other museums and institutions that have undertaken voluntary artwork restitutions.
Suggested readings
Amanda Buonaiuto, US Museums Return Nazi-Looted Schiele Artworks to the Heirs of Fritz Grünbaum, Cᴇɴᴛᴇʀ ғᴏʀ Aʀᴛ Lᴀᴡ (2023), https://itsartlaw.org/2024/01/31/us-museums-return-schiele-artworks-to-the-heirs-of-fritz-grunbaum/.
The Lost Collection of Fritz Grünbaum, Gʀᴜ̈ɴʙᴀᴜᴍ Cᴏʟʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ (2023), https://www.collectiongruenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JK-1839.pdf.
About the author
Amanda Buonaiuto (Center for Art Law Legal Fellow Spring 2024) is a Brazilian lawyer who specialized in the restitution of Nazi-looted art during her L.L.M at the University of Bonn. Amanda's academic journey together with a global perspective shaped by her international background provides her with a significant understanding of the legal complexities within the Art Law field.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment