Postiglione & J.P. Getty Trust v. Ministry of Culture (Sixth Section, no.09962/2023)
In a case brought on appeal by Alex Herbert Postiglione (Herbert), the Sixth Section of The Council of State in Italy ruled in favor of Herbert and the J.P. Getty Trust on November 21st regarding their rightful purchase of The Miracle of The Quails by the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California. The respondents in the case, the Ministry of Culture, tried to argue that the certificate of free movement that was granted to the painting should be annulled and the painting should be brought back to Italy, due to the country’s interest in preserving the painting. Furthermore, they argued that Herbert intentionally downplayed the importance of the painting during the certification process by making it look dirty, and the officers who evaluated and valued the certificate did not possess enough knowledge with regards the painting’s provenance and value. However, the Sixth Section did not buy into the respondents’ position, stating that a lack of knowledge was not a sufficient argument . Read the decision here.
Case Update: Reif v. Art Institute of Chicago, 23-cv-2443 (SDNY, Nov. 24, 2023).
A judge granted the Art Institute of Chicago’s motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff, Timothy Reif, in a Nazi-looted art case, allowing for the Art Institute to retain the property in question, Russian Prisoner of War (1916) by Egon Schiele. This case is one of many in the litigation surrounding the collection of art owned by Austrian-Jewish cabaret performer Fritz Grunbaum, whose art was alleged to have been stolen by the Nazis prior to his imprisonment and murder in Dachau. Here, Judge John Koeltl ruled the HEAR Act’s 5(e) exception did not apply and thus the statute of limitations had run out on the plaintiff’s claim. The judge also ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by laches, as decided in an earlier case also linked to the Grunbaum collection, Bakalar v. Vavra. Read the opinion here.
Brockington v. Padilla, N.E. (Porter Super., Ct, Ind. Oct. 17, 2023).
Porter county superior court judge Jeffrey Thode dismissed the lawsuit over the proposed sale of three major paintings from the Brauer Museum of Art at Valparaiso University. The university President, Jeffrey Thode, was selling three artworks in order to build freshman dorms for $10 million. The court ruled that the plaintiffs, Richard Brauer and Philip Brockington, lacked standing since they were not directly connected to the trust that originally gifted the paintings that were for sale to the university museum in 1953. Brauer was the founder of the university’s art museum, and the late Brockington was a retired professor of law at the university and a benefactor of the museum. In 1953, when the works were donated the donor agreement was made by Percy H. Sloan and the university said the collection shall be open to the public generally during … reasonable hours…; it being the intention of the parties to make the benefits of this collection available to all persons.” Though the donor agreement required pieces from Sloan’s collection to be on view in a dedicated space, it made no clear provisions on the future sale of any of the artworks in the gift.The plaintiffs argued that they had the standing and that the sale of the works would tarnish the museum’s credibility. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no direct connection to the charitable trust. The court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Read more here.
Peters Gallery of New York, Inc v. Successors-in-Interest to Eberstadt & Sons, 1:2023cv03181 (SDNY, October 11, 2023).
The legal battle over Western art that disappeared over 60 years ago continues to heat up in the Southern District of New York. The art at issue here is a piece entitled Flute Courtship by Eanger Irving Couse, an artist who took a keen interest in themes of the American West and depicting Native Americans. The legal trouble began when Bonhams auction house in Los Angeles put the piece up for sale and the heirs to its original owner demanded “surrender of possession.” The Gerald Peters Gallery, a gallery specializing in Western art and based in Santa Fe and New York, brought suit against the heirs, claiming their demand was time-barred by laches and statute of limitations. The heirs have now countersued, outlining their chronology of ownership and expanding their claim to include other art that went missing back in the 1960s. Read docket here. Read more here. (AME)
Case Update: Orlando Museum of Art v. De Groft, Case No. # 179591088 (9th Cir. 2023)
The former executive of the Orlando Museum of Art, Aaron De Goft, has filed a countersuit against the museum for wrongful termination and defamation. The museum initially fired Groff for the inclusion of forged Basquiat paintings in an exhibition. Groft says that he served as a scapegoat and the lawsuit against him was a public relations strategy. He asserts that a former board chairwoman and outside legal counsel approved the exhibit, even after the FBI issued a subpoena against the museum.
Cleveland Museum of Art v. Alvin Bragg, in his capacity as the District Attorney of New York County, New York, 1:23-cv-02048 (N.D. Ohio. 2023)
The Cleveland Museum of Art is suing Alvin Bragg, the current district attorney for the county of New York, over the ownership of an ancient bronze statue valued at $20 million which was seized by government officials in August 2023. The statue at the center of the suit is a headless statue that is believed to depict the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, however it was not known what region the statue was created in. In 2009, the Turkish government raised questions surrounding the provenance of the statue and, in 2012, the government officially claimed hat the statue was stolen from them. In August of this year, the Manhattan DA’s office rendered the work “seized in place” for the duration of the current investigation. However, the museum alleges that Bragg has provided “insufficient” evidence to prove that statue was stolen from Turkey. The museum’s ultimate goal for this suit is to have a judge declare the museum is the true owner of the statue. Read the complaint here.
United States v. Maurello, 23 CR 20 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2023)
Michael Maurello, the former payroll manager of the Art Institute of Chicago, funneled millions from the institution into his private bank account. Maurello has been sentenced to three years in prison, and an order to repay the $2.3 million he embezzled from the museum between 2007 and 2020. Due to health issues, he will spend his prison term in a medical facility and then three years of supervised release. The money taken was reportedly used to pay for Maurello’s expensive lifestyle, including vacations and jewelry. Read more here.
Timo Platt and Gordon Platt v. Allen Michaan, 1:19-cv-04234-ER (SDNY 2019)
In a case involving descendants of Louis Comfort Tiffany versus auction house owner and Tiffany paintings collector Allen Michaan, the Southern District of New York ruled in Michaan’s favor in September 2023. The dispute originated from Tiffany’s granddaughter, Louise Platt, who left a will in 1994 distributing her property to her three children, Henry, Thomas, and Graham, but the will excluded certain paintings including the “Market Day at Nuremberg.” After Louise’s passing her son , Thomas, wrote a an unsigned letter to his two other brother suggesting to equitably divide the paintings, but he never got a response back. Ultimately the paintings ended up in Henry’s possession and he ultimately sold them to Michann in 2011 for one million dollars. This sale is the issue at the center of the suit because , the plaintiffs claim that the family trust has ownership of those sold paintings based on anti-alienation restrictions. To make this claim they used the unsigned letter as evidence and as well two people who testified saying that Henry told them that he could not sell the paintings. However, the court rejected their arguments. First with regards to the letter that Thomas wrote and sent it was not sufficient to to prove that Henry and Graham accepted the anti-alienation proposal so that point could not work. Next with regards to the witness testimony, the court found then inadmissible because of the Dead Man’s Statute. Due to the fact that Henry is now passed and that in his will he made no such indication that he could not sell the paintings the court chose to not use this evidence. Furthermore the plaintiff tried to use the tax documents filed by Louise that included the paintings as proof that the family trust owned the paintings but the court barred that through tax estoppel. As well the plaintiff’s claims as a whole were barred through judicial estoppel because of the fact that the daughter of one of the original brothers, Graham, certified one of Tiffany’s pieces as his personal property in an Oregon court. Despite not being a party, Graham’s daughter’s certification connected her with this action, leading to the Trust being judicially estopped from claiming ownership. These factors ultimately led to the defendant being granted summary judgment. Read the decision here.
