Should a Jewish family fleeing the Nazis be able to recover its Picasso, 80 years later?

[woolfe9998]

From time to time, I like to start a thread on something that has nothing to do with contentious partisan politics. Where I think a news story is interesting enough for discussion.

This story involves a fairly wealthy Jewish family, in Nazi Germany in 1938. Desperate for cash to relocate the family to another country, they sold their Picasso painting called "Woman Ironing" from Picasso's blue period, to an art dealer in Munich, for $1500. Equivalent to maybe $20,000 today, it was likely worth at least 50 times that much back then, possibly hundreds of times more. Picasso was not one of those starving artists who was only recognized as a genuis after they died. He was quite famous, and wealthy, long before 1938. Today, this particular work is worth $100-$200 million.

So the family was one of the lucky ones because they had the resources to successfully flee the Nazis. They ultimately recolated the family to Buenos Aires. After the war, the art dealer continued to hold the work in his personal collection, until he died in 1976, and left the painting to New York's Gugenheim Museum. Now their descendants are suing the Gugenheim for either repatriotation of the painting to the family, or its fair market value.

A Jewish family fleeing the Nazis sold a Picasso in 1938. Their heirs want it back

One of Pablo Picasso's Blue Period paintings is at the center of a lawsuit between a Jewish family and New York's Guggenheim Museum.

www.cnn.com

A couple of salient legal points. First, under pretty much every legal system, any contract made under duress is invalid and can be undone by the courts. Second, although I'm not sure, there might not be any statute of limitations on undoing a contract which is considered legally invalid from the get go.

So should this family be compensated by Gugenheim, or is it just too late? I mean, in theory any generation of this family could have purused against the art dealer before 1978, or against Gugenheim at any time after that. Did they wait too long? Is it a problem that ownership has changed hands since?

 

[pauldun170]

Going by precedent....
Nope

 

[MrSquished]

Kanye tried to warn us

 

[blackangst1]

No

 

[ch33zw1z]

Would the family have parted with it if not fleeing the nazis? If the answer is no then something should be done for them.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the next time it is sold the real value estimate of what it would have sold for with no duress should be divided among any heirs that are left.

 

[rommelrommel]

Being desperate for cash isn’t duress.

That being said, the painting cost the museum nothing. Morally, I would have a problem with being enriched to this degree out of these sorts of circumstances. I think the museum should figure out some way to compensate the family in part.

 

[allisolm]

IANAL but I thought in order to claim duress, the other party to the contract had to be the one providing the duress. Please set me straight if that is wrong.

 

[pmv]

Never mind being a lawyer or not, surely it's a _moral_ dilemma as much as a legal one?

Isn't it just a particular case of something that crops up over-and-over - including the question of reparations for slavery or much later crimes against black people?

I gather there's an on-going argument in Poland over Jewish descendants of Holocaust victims returning and reclaiming houses, that now have Polish people living in them. And I _think_ something similar happens in Cyprus with disinherited people of both communities.

I have no idea how these things should be resolved. Because it's a continuum, it seems very hard to know where to draw a line.


e.g.

Anger as Poland plans law that will stop Jews reclaiming wartime homes

Daughter of Holocaust survivor pledges to continue her fight for family property seized by Nazi occupiers

www.theguardian.com

Turkish Cypriot property claims in Republic ‘the other side of the same coin’ | Cyprus Mail

Turkish Cypriots claim their properties in the Republic just as Greek Cypriots claim theirs in the north, lawyer Achilleas Demetriades said on Wednesday, warning that taxpayers will eventually be called to foot the bill for the government’s mismanagement of these properties. Demetriades...

cyprus-mail.com

 

[Dave_5k]

I'd say they should get nothing - and further, should pay the legal fees for the museum for this baseless lawsuit. No crime or fraud has even been alleged on the part of the buyer.

And even if they could prove fraud or a crime by the buyer, 80 years later is far too long after the fact to bring up novel claims for the first time.

And morally, at most, they should be entitled to the difference between the 1938 sale price and the 1938 fair market value. So perhaps $1500 if they only got half value (inflated to today, perhaps $30k in current dollars). They have taken none of the risks, or the costs, of maintaining museum quality artwork for the intervening years, and should not benefit from the luck that the piece has escalated that much in value.

Edit: as a side note, merely insuring the artwork typically costs 1.5-2% of the assessed value - each year.

 

[alien42]

They sold it, so no.

 

[woolfe9998]

Would the family have parted with it if not fleeing the nazis? If the answer is no then something should be done for them.

I think since they sold the painting at a tiny fraction of its market value, and given that this was Nazi Germany in 1938, and given that these were Jews, we can assume this, yes. We can also assume that the dealer who bought it from them knew he was getting a sweetheart deal on a Picasso because he would have known the value, and he also must have known why he was getting it so cheap, regardless of whether they told him they were desperate when they sold it. Because everyone living in Germany in 1938 knew what was happening to the Jews. This dealer was essentially a knowing profiteer of the Holocaust.

However, I'm still hung up on the amount of time passed, so I suppose I agree that these grand kids probably shouldn't be able to recover from the Gugenheim. Because there's got to be a time limit. I think had the parents, who died in 1948 and 1959, tried to recover it after the war, they would have had a valid claim.

 

[Pohemi]

Sold it in desperate times? Sure. Under duress is a bit more of a stretch. Plenty of artwork and valuables were just straight stolen by the Nazis as they ransacked homes. Some families have managed to get some of those belongings back, but I'd imagine not many.

But having admittedly sold it before fleeing, I would lean towards no. I do not believe they have rights to it now.

And like the people trying to claim homes that were lost during WWII in Poland now...why did you wait 80 years to make claims?

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd say they should get nothing - and further, should pay the legal fees for the museum for this baseless lawsuit. No crime or fraud has even been alleged on the part of the buyer.

And even if they could prove fraud or a crime by the buyer, 80 years later is far too long after the fact to bring up novel claims for the first time.

You don't have to prove "fraud or crime" by the buyer. Let me restate it again: any contract signed under duress is not a valid contract and may be set aside by courts at any time later.

But even setting aside legalities for one moment, do you think it's OK to buy things at a fraction of their market value from refugees who are fleeing probable death or internment? The reason I ask this moral question of you is that you seem awfully punitive towards these plantiffs.

And morally, at most, they should be entitled to the difference between the 1938 sale price and the 1938 fair market value. So perhaps $1500 if they only got half value (inflated to today, perhaps $30k in current dollars). They have taken none of the risks, or the costs, of maintaining museum quality artwork for the intervening years, and should not benefit from the luck that the piece has escalated that much in value.

Edit: as a side note, merely insuring the artwork typically costs 1.5-2% of the assessed value - each year.

That is partly correct but the remedy would not be what you would suggest. It would be to give the plaintiff's current fair market value, but deduct the maintenance and insurances costs already incurred by the current owner. You say they would benefit from luck, but they would not have in this situation had they not been fleeing the Nazis to begin with. The painting would have simply remained in their family. And so far as it being luck, well I guess it was that or a smart investment in the work of a painter who was already famous and was getting more and more so with each passing year.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sold it in desperate times? Sure. Under duress is a bit more of a stretch. Plenty of artwork and valuables were just straight stolen by the Nazis as they ransacked homes. Some families have managed to get some of those belongings back, but I'd imagine not many.

They were under physical threat of being killed if they couldn't raise the money to leave the country, and sold a painting for what could well have been less than 1% of its then current market value to acquire that money. You don't think that was duress?

But having admittedly sold it before fleeing, I would lean towards no. I do not believe they have rights to it now.

And like the people trying to claim homes that were lost during WWII in Poland now...why did you wait 80 years to make claims?

I agree with you on the late timing of it. I think the grandparents should have tried to get it back after the war.

 

[pcgeek11]

I would also say no they are not entitled to the painting or reparations from the current owner or the previous owner who bought the painting.

Any beef they may have would be with the Germans that caused them to move.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would also say no they are not entitled to the painting or reparations from the current owner or the previous owner who bought the painting.

Any beef they may have would be with the Germans that caused them to move.

I think what the art dealer did here was reprehensible. He should at least have tried to return it to the family after the war, or attempted to pay them something more for it. But that's just me. I realize most people would probably have taken advantage of the situation for profit.

I do have an issue with holding Guggenheim responsible though as they possibly did not know the full provenance of painting when they received it.

 

[Indus]

Hmm the painting SOLD by them saved their lives and allowed the family to SURVIVE.

It wasn't stolen.

So no.

People have to sell their cars/ houses all the time to get out of a shitty situation.. should they be given their cars/ houses back too?

 

[woolfe9998]

Hmm the painting SOLD by them saved their lives and allowed the family to SURVIVE.

It wasn't stolen.

So no.

People have to sell their cars/ houses all the time to get out of a shitty situation.. should they be given their cars/ houses back too?

If they sold the property under physical threat of dying if they didn't, then yes. But that situation doesn't occur very often. I don't think you can compare this to any ordinary situation like, we have to sell our house because I lost my job and we can't afford to live in the area any more. That is not the kind of duress necessary to invalidate a contract. Fleeing from death and internment is. I think it also matters that the buyer clearly took advantage of their situation. But I'm beginning to see that most people do not agree with me on that.

 

[MrSquished]

I think at least they should get some compensation such as being able to punch a hundred current day Nazis in the face repeatedly. So just find 100 trump humpers and let them get punch in the face by this family.

 

[HomerJS]

Just so I understand, you asking for reparations??

 

[theeedude]

A deal is a deal. They were under duress, but that duress was not from the art dealer.

 

[Rebel_L]

If they sold the property under physical threat of dying if they didn't, then yes. But that situation doesn't occur very often. I don't think you can compare this to any ordinary situation like, we have to sell our house because I lost my job and we can't afford to live in the area any more. That is not the kind of duress necessary to invalidate a contract. Fleeing from death and internment is. I think it also matters that the buyer clearly took advantage of their situation. But I'm beginning to see that most people do not agree with me on that.

The duress part seems less relatable than other forms of duress. The sellers still had the agency to decide which assets to try to liquidate, making it feel like more of a comparable situation to other people who are under huge stress in their lives and need cash and end up at a pawnshop to sell items for a fraction of their worth so they can get money fast. I think most of us would agree that people who sell items for dirt cheap at pawnshops are also probably not in a proper state of mind to make good decisions but we still hold them to it as far as I know. Add in that no one seems to have tried to get the painting back for the last 80 years, the actual sellers and buyers can no longer tell their sides of the story either and it seems like something that the clock has run out on.

The buyer who bought this painting on the cheap also never took advantage of the buy to cash in big. It stayed in the buyers collection and was donated to a museum on his death. That could just as easily show that he was waiting for someone to come claim it but since no one ever did he donated it to a place where it can be enjoyed by the masses. For all we know they made a deal that they could come back to pick up the painting for a set price when things were safe but the sellers didnt think it was worth the effort to try and get it back once they had a new life settled and were happy for the buyer to have it for helping them get out of Germany. If we go with the pawnshop type of analogy then 80 years seems a bit excessive to expect to get an item back even with these extraordinary circumstances.

The long wait on the attempted recovery also just make it seem like its just about money and not about recognition for what the family went through making my instincts say that the statute of limitations should be up for this.

 

[Zorba]

You don't have to prove "fraud or crime" by the buyer. Let me restate it again: any contract signed under duress is not a valid contract and may be set aside by courts at any time later.

People in disparate situations sell items below market value all the time, this is basically how pawn shops work. Morally, would it be better for all potential buyers to refuse purchasing said item because some time later the seller can say never mind? These people obviously thought getting getting the money to escape was worth more to them than this painting.

Nothing about the holocaust is moral, but this art dealer helped save this family's lives and considering the original owners never made a claim for the painting, they must've thought so too. It's not like you could walk into an art galley today a demand a quick sell and get any where near fair market value today either.

 

[Zorba]

I think what the art dealer did here was reprehensible. He should at least have tried to return it to the family after the war, or attempted to pay them something more for it. But that's just me. I realize most people would probably have taken advantage of the situation for profit.

I do have an issue with holding Guggenheim responsible though as they possibly did not know the full provenance of painting when they received it.

He gave them the money to survive. Should he have turned them away instead? You don't get fair market value selling any artwork to a dealer ever. I'm sure they fit less than they should have, but I'm sure the art dealer could've also stolen it and gotten away with it, too.