Actress Elizabeth Taylor in Nazi art row

The Australian ^ | 5/26/04 | The Australian

[freedom44]

US screen legend Elizabeth Taylor has sued the family of a victim of Nazi rule in Germany as part of a legal battle to hold on to a precious Van Gogh painting that she claims is rightfully hers.

The violet-eyed movie goddess filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against the South African and Canadian descendants of a Jewish woman who fled the Nazis who say the painting was looted from their relative and have demanded its return or a share of its sale proceeds, court documents showed today.

Double Oscar-winner Taylor, 72, says she bought Dutch artist Vincent Van Gogh's 1889 work, View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Remy at a Sotheby's auction in London in 1963, at the height of her fame.

According to the suit that names South African Mark Orkin and Canadian residents Sarah-Rose Josepha Adler and Andrew Orkin as defendants, Taylor now keeps the work in her Los Angeles mansion.

The trio contacted Taylor's business manager claiming to be heirs of Margarete Mauthner, a former owner of the painting who fled Germany after Hitler rose to power before World War II.

They have alleged the painting was looted by the Nazis, who built up a huge stockpile of valuable art works seized from Jews, a practice that has in recent years sparked waves of litigation over the ownership of art pieces.

But Cleopatra star Taylor claims the family has failed to show that the artwork was ever illegally seized from Mauthner.

"Defendants have provided not a shred of evidence that the painting ever fell into Nazi hands or any specific information concerning how or when Mauthner 'lost possession' of it," the suit states.

Taylor maintains that the catalogue from the 1963 auction at which she bought the piece stated that the painting had once belonged to Mauthner, but that it passed to two reputable galleries before it was sold to a German Jew, Alfred Wolf, who himself fled the Nazis in 1933 for Buenos Aires.

[americafirst]

But Cleopatra star Taylor claims the family has failed to show that the artwork was ever illegally seized from Mauthner.

I would think that it would work the other way - that she would have to prove clear title to the work.

[noscreenname]

Title is an interesting concept where art and antiques are concerned.

She did state that she was given 'providence' for the painting in question. Her title would be the bill of sale from Sothby's.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

She did state that she was given 'providence' for the painting in question.

In the case of art and antiques...that would be 'provenance'.

[Cicero]

Elizabeth Taylor has clear title--a bill of sale from a reputable company which has given its provenance.

Therefore the plaintiffs have to show some evidence that the provenance was incorrect. If they can show that the work was wrongfully taken, then it would become a matter for the court to decide proper ownership.

[beckett]

From the information provided it looks like Taylor has a case. If the Mauthner family cannot show that Alfred Wolf had the painting through false auspices, and if Wolf had the painting before the Nazis came to power in 1933, and Taylor can show a legal provenance dating back to Wolf, then Taylor appears to have a legally obtained painting.

[Pilsner]

Therefore the plaintiffs have to show some evidence that the provenance was incorrect. If they can show that the work was wrongfully taken, then it would become a matter for the court to decide proper ownership.

I'm no expert on the law of lost wroks of fine art, but usually a person has only a reasonable period of time in whichto bring a claim, even it is valid. If Taylor had purchased the painting in a private sale and never told the public then the alleged "heirs" could claim that they had only recently discovered where their painting was. In fact she purchased it in a public sale from one of the two most exclusive art auction houses in the world. Today, or in 1963, if you wanted to check on a missing Van Gogh then Sothebys and Christies (Spelling?) would be the place you would check, to see if they had sold it, or knew of it being offered for sale. You can't just sit on your hands for 40 years while the painting appreciates and evidence to prove or refute your case is lost, then run in a sue for it.

[noscreenname]

Thank you.

I thought I knew what I meant but not the correct usage, muffble, bruffikl (usually happens when I stick my foot in my mouth!).

[KellyAdmirer]

I assume she would have a claim against Sotheby's for selling stolen goods, if the worst allegations are true. It's not the case, btw, that all art works in Nazi hands were stolen. Some were bought quite legally in auctions and in other open ways, others were theirs by heredity or were acquired legally before the war. But, of course, many were stolen and confiscated, too. Simply saying it was this woman's before the war doesn't prove anything by itself.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

No sweat. It's the Evil English Teacher Demon inside of me that bubbles to the surface now and again.

An easy mnemonic to help remember the difference is the first 5 letters of the word spell 'prove'.
"Provenance is required to prove authenticity."

[noscreenname]

Very good! I'll remember that!

Again, thank you. I always like to be 'American English correct'!

[jocon307]

You make excellent points.

[The KG9 Kid]

Personally, both sides can spoon a goose.

The painting is Dutch. Send it back to Holland to be placed in the Rijksmuseum or in Den Haag.

[beaversmom]

Thanks to you too--I just learned a new word today.

[SJackson]

This would seem to be a borderline case. The issue isn't theft, rather the nature of the sale. Think of it as a contract you signed with a gun to your head.

Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton PLLC - Claimants of Margarete Mauthner Holocaust-era van Gogh painting react to Elizabeth Taylor lawsuit

Wednesday May 26, 7:37 pm ET

WASHINGTON D.C., May 26 /PRNewswire/ - The claimants of the Holocaust-era painting by Vincent van Gogh that is now in the possession of Elizabeth Taylor of California reacted today to Ms. Taylor's filing of a lawsuit in a California court, seeking a declaratory judgment that she is the rightful owner of the painting.

"The complaint appears to be entirely non-meritorious," said attorney Thomas J. Hamilton, of the Washington, DC law firm of Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton, PLLC. "It misapprehends the law that applies in stolen art recovery cases generally and to Holocaust-era art claims in particular. The complaint also evinces no understanding of Nazi policy to German Jews during the 1930s. It is now widely acknowledged and accepted in the art world and by recent federal legislation that German Jews sold paintings and other property during the Hitler era under circumstances that amounted to a National policy of theft."

"The preeminent artworld authority on van Gogh, Dr. J. Baart de la Faille, confirmed in his catalogues raisonnes of both 1928 and 1939 that Margarete Mauthner was the owner of the van Gogh painting during the 1930s, and a third catalogue raisonne issued in 1970 corroborated this conclusion," said attorney John J. Byrne, Jr., also with the law firm of Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton, PLLC. "A catalogue raisonne is a definitive listing of an artist's work prepared by a leading scholar. U.S. courts consistently have invoked catalogues raisonnes to decide ownership disputes to paintings such as our client's claim against Ms. Taylor."

"We have never claimed that Nazis directly took the painting off Mrs. Mauthner's wall. But we do not need to make any such showing in order to recover the painting under the 1998 federal Holocaust Victims Redress Act. The Redress Act as well as U.S. policy and law immediately after World War II have been consistent and clear: European Jews sold property during the Holocaust era under acute political pressure and economic duress and it must be returned to them regardless of whether the buyers were Jews or not, or whether or not the buyers were familiar galleries or dealers," said Mr. Hamilton.

"The ownership claim of Ms. Mauthner was registered in both the 1928 and 1939 catalogues raisonnes," Mr. Hamilton added.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Byrne Goldenberg & Hamilton PLLC

[SJackson]

You might note post 15. Physical theft isn't the only standard. The nature of the sale in 1933 is the issue, not the Sothby's purchase. Usually these issues are settled through negotiation.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[KellyAdmirer]

The heirs have an interesting case. I suppose it depends exactly when the painting was sold, under what circumstances, and whether it was for fair value. I don't know the standard here, I presume that all transactions from the period are not automatically reversed, as I think the French decided to do. I doubt it is as clear-cut as this press-release makes it sound.

Art dealings from that period are very murky, from what I have read. Goering was famous for paying fair value or even over fair value on his trips to Amsterdam and Paris early on. As the war progressed and things turned against Germany, the Germans tended to confiscate and steal more, especially from 1942 on as the Holocaust deepened. It's an interesting historical case, a good example of why investing in European artwork that traded hands during that period is pretty risky.

[hchutch]

Interesting...

Hmmm... I wonder how such thing might apply to other items that remain unclaimed for a long period of time...

[NFOShekky]

"The violet-eyed movie goddess. . ."

Maybe at one time. I think the beautiful YOUNG actress has turned into a bit of a freak. Just ask her good friend Michael Jackson!

[SJackson]

Other than return of historical artifacts, which I think are generally done on moral rather than legal grounds, the oldest similar cases I can think of are insurance claims paid to heirs of Armenians dating to the late 1800s.

There's periodically litigation relating to treaties with various tribes over land ownership/treaty issues, but that's a legal track.

The oldest "controversy" that comes to mind is the negotiations between Israel and the Vatican over Jewish artifacts looted by the Romans, though that will be predated if Egypt does in fact file their lawsuit against Jews worldwide over possessions taken from Egypt by the Jewish people during the Exodus. Of course they lost that one in Alexander's court, so maybe they won't try again.

[SJackson]

It's an interesting historical case, a good example of why investing in European artwork that traded hands during that period is pretty risky.

Particularly when you're not dealing with "top tier" works, which of course this is, which don't have a trail.

[SJackson]

Art dealings from that period are very murky, from what I have read. Goering was famous for paying fair value or even over fair value on his trips to Amsterdam and Paris early on.

When sales are involved rather than looting, "Fair value", impossible to determine, isn't always the issue, rather the forced nature of the sale.

[Poohbah]

I know where you're going...military aircraft are legally considered to be in the same class as naval vessels, and are the property of sovereign states. States do NOT relinquish title over such vessels for purposes of salvage.

England has, over the years, sent polite notes to Tokyo whenever Japanese businessmen propose salvaging HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.

The text of said notes mentions that Her Majesty's Government would regard such salvage as "an unfriendly act." Kindly recall what that statement means in the subtle, nuanced discourse of international diplomacy...

Incidentally, if there were fatalities in the aircraft crash, the aircraft is considered to be a gravesite.

[KellyAdmirer]

A lot depends on whom the burden falls, I suppose. Proving coercion in an undocumented transaction 60 years on may be difficult. I would be inclined to give the heirs the benefit of the doubt, but the law may specify otherwise.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"...who himself fled the Nazis in 1933 for Buenos Aires."

Smirk. Yeah...right. Lots of observant Jews in Argentina.

[novacation]

Those claiming to have rights painting could made her an offer to buy it back from her at market price.Why should she lose if she made a legitimate purchase?

[noscreenname]

OK.

I see. Interesting conumdrum for Ms Taylor.

[hchutch]

You've got Freepmail.

[SJackson]

"...who himself fled the Nazis in 1933 for Buenos Aires." Smirk. Yeah...right. Lots of observant Jews in Argentina.

Quite a few Jews emmigrated to Argentina, I think it's 4 or 5th on the list, after the US, England and Palestine. The issue was who would let you in, and most nations quotas were filled.

[Paulus Invictus]

You have to wonder if poor old Vincent isn't spinning in his grave. During his unfortunate life he made pennies, if that, from the many paintings he produced. Sometime a genius must first die before he becomes a success. As for Taylor, I have little or no sympathy. She's just another rich, spoiled Hwood leftist RAT. A good-hearted person would donate the painting to a worthy art museum so the world might enjoy it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

True, but the operative word was "observant."

"Boys From Brazil" was an interesting book/movie.

[SJackson]

A good-hearted person would donate the painting to a worthy art museum so the world might enjoy it.

Along with tax deductions for everyone. A reasonable solution.

[SJackson]

A lot depends on whom the burden falls, I suppose. Proving coercion in an undocumented transaction 60 years on may be difficult. I would be inclined to give the heirs the benefit of the doubt, but the law may specify otherwise.

Well, Liz filed the lawsuit. As I understand it, in cases like these it's pretty well understood that Jews in Germany were under duress from 1932-33 forward. Personally, I wouldn't want to enter a courtroom to prove this wasn't the case in this instance, particularly if I were a public figure. Should have been an easier way to solve the problem.

[KellyAdmirer]

I am smiling a bit at this, because your heart clearly is in the right place. Nobody wants to justify something the Nazis did to hurt the original owner, if that is the case. I will merely point out that Taylor is the one with the bill of sale, from a reputable gallery which presumably did its own due diligence back in 1963 to ascertain true title. Proving those things presumably will meet her particular burden of proof.

The heirs, God bless them, are the ones contesting the suit, so they have a burden of showing that some mitigating factor overcomes Taylor's showing of ownership. From the facts in this thread, they only have proof of prior ownership, a transaction of some kind during a turbulent and frightful period, and the vague insinuation that something underhanded happened. That is a rather slim reed on which to base one's hopes of acquiring a multi-million dollar painting. The burden may be on the heirs to prove something wrongful was done, or else their position would have to be that all transactions involving Jews from that period are void, and I've never seen that proposition in the law.

As an example of just leaping to conclusions being a bad idea, suppose the lady emigrated to neutral Sweden or Switzerland and sold the painting there. Could her heirs argue coercion? What if it was sold at auction in June 1939 in Amsterdam or Paris. Coercion? The heirs argue that it doesn't matter that the buyer was a Jew, but I tend to think that does have at least some significance, in the sense that if it had been sold to Himmler that would raise some serious red flags. Could she have sold the painting in 1932 and simply kept the sale quiet despite the official registrar cited by the heirs? I think that something has to be proven before you strip a current owner of her title. Perhaps the heirs do have some evidence. That is just my opinion, the law may be different.

It's a tough case, the kind that buys lawyers their summer houses in the Hamptons. I agree with you, some kind of settlement makes sense. This suit by Taylor may be her way of clearing the air of a whispering campaign against her and forcing everybody to sit down and talk about it.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"The claimants of the Holocaust-era painting by Vincent van Gogh"

Speaking of English, doesn't this sentence as written imply that the work was done in the 1940's?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"The claimants of the Holocaust-era painting by Vincent van Gogh"

Speaking of English, doesn't this sentence as written imply that the work was done in the 1940's?

Yes...on the face of it. But what if Van Gogh was prescient and created a painting whose subject matter dealt with the events of 1930-40 in Nazi Germany? Then it would make sense. And it would make the painting something that Elizabeth Taylor could not afford.

Just an idle musing.

"The claimants of the Holocaust-era painting by Vincent van Gogh"

Speaking of English, doesn't this sentence as written imply that the work was done in the 1940's?

[DTA]

>>>>>>Along with tax deductions for everyone. A reasonable solution.<<<<

The families of the guys who helped themselves from The Gold train should also think about this solution

[KC_Conspirator]

Well, those "reputable" companies are not so reputable. This has been a problem since the end of the war.

[SJackson]

The families of the guys who helped themselves from The Gold train should also think about this solution

The families, or the buyers of the loot, should think about it. Of course, well known artwork and financial documents aside, it's a to the victor belongs the spoils system, unless an heir is foolish enough to auction a piece of furniture, or gold, as authentic, from the gold train.

[SJackson]

Elizabeth Taylor has clear title--a bill of sale from a reputable company which has given its provenance...Therefore the plaintiffs have to show some evidence that the provenance was incorrect. If they can show that the work was wrongfully taken, then it would become a matter for the court to decide proper ownership.

Her title isn't clear any more. The early 30's transactions, which seem murky to me, are the issue. Liz likely acted in good faith, if she loses I'm sure Sothebys will give her a refund, coupons on future purchases or something like that.

When you walk through a museum, all the stories those artifacts have to tell.

[SJackson]

You're right, it's great for the lawyers.

It will be interesting to see if this story unfolds publicaly, because the original sales seem odd. The laws of 33 are significant, it's the year Jews lost most of their rights, including the right to deal in art. Don't know about 32, the year Hitler came to power, but 29 would have been a different issue, as would Amsterdam pre invasion. And catalogs (primary source material in these cases) list Mauthner as the owner in 1928-1939 and 1970. When Liz bought the painting, looted art was a wink and nod issue in the art world, like collecting on an insurance policy without a death certificate from Auschwitz.

Clearly Liz wants a clear title, to sell it or pass it on.

[Prodigal Daughter]

Quite a few Jews emmigrated to Argentina, I think it's 4 or 5th on the list, after the US, England and Palestine. The issue was who would let you in, and most nations quotas were filled.

Exactamente!, and they, in fact, were a second wave of Jewish immigrants to Argentina. There were many Jews who had already immigrated to Argentina at the end of the 19th Century to escape the Russian pogroms and they became Jewish gauchos (cowboys)! Yiddishe Gauchos documentary

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"The Yidishe Gauchos"

Thanks. That looks like a fascinating documentary.

What a double bill -- "The Yidishe Gauchos" and "Boys From Brazil."

[beckett]

It is significant that the Mauthner family's own lawyers do not state the year in which the painting changed hands. They talk vaguely about some scholar who listed the painting in a catalog. Why can't the Mauthner family simply tell the story of how the painting was sold (or stolen)? Don't they know? Or do they know and not want the story to be told? The latter seems far more likely.

If Wolf left for Argentina in 1933 did he have the painting with him? When did he buy it? From whom? These questions have answers. The Mauthners seem less than enthusiastic about answering them.

[SJackson]

If Wolf left for Argentina in 1933 did he have the painting with him? When did he buy it? From whom? These questions have answers. The Mauthners seem less than enthusiastic about answering them.

I'm sure we'll hear answers, remember Taylor brought the suit making it public. The Mauthner sale is the issue though, not Wolf nor the galleries it passed through. Another article.

Liz Taylor scorns SA family's Nazi claim

Sunday Times, South Africa

Actress goes to court to stop Orkins demanding her Van Gogh on the grounds it was taken from their great-grandmother by Hitler

NASHIRA DAVIDS

THE Academy Award-winning actress Elizabeth Taylor has accused the South African family trying to claim her multimillion-dollar Van Gogh painting of trying to "bluff" her out of a "treasured possession".

In papers filed at the Los Angeles District Court on Monday, Taylor said the Orkin family's demand for the 115-year-old View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Rémy oil painting is "factually baseless" and an "attempt to bluff [her] into parting with a treasured possession she acquired in good faith".

The Orkins, who are Jewish, claim the painting belonged to their great-grandmother and that she lost it to the Nazis during World War Two.

Taylor's father, Francis Taylor, bought the painting for her at a Sotheby's auction in 1963 for £92 000.

Taylor claims the Orkins' great-grandmother, Margarete Mauthner, sold the painting for "financial reasons" before the Nazis came to power in 1933.

The actress wants the judge to rule that she is the legal, bona fide owner of the painting and to prevent the Orkins from launching a legal action of their own, as they have threatened to do.

But Mauthner's great-grandchildren, Andrew Orkin, a lawyer in Canada, Mark Orkin, head of the Human Sciences Research Council in South Africa, and Sarah-Rose Josepha Adler said Mauthner had no choice but to sell at a time when Jews were being persecuted.

"We have never claimed that Nazis took the painting off Mrs Mauthner's wall at gunpoint. But we do not need to make any such showing in order to recover the painting under the 1998 federal Holocaust Victims Redress Act.

"European Jews sold property during the Holocaust era under acute political pressure and economic duress and it must be returned to them regardless of whether the buyers were Jews or not," said their Washington lawyer, Thomas Hamilton.

But Taylor, star of National Velvet and Butterfield 8, said the family sent her letters claiming the artwork was "wrongfully expropriated" as a result of confiscatory Nazi policies.

She also claims that the Orkins waited 40 years before "attempting to dispossess an innocent, good-faith purchaser".

But the painting, which is now valued at more than $8-million, was not the only Van Gogh owned by Mauthner.

Court papers allege that her last Van Gogh, View of the Sea at St Maries, was sold in 1933.

In a letter dated October 21 1933, one of the employees of the gallery to which Mauthner sold the painting wrote: "[Mauthner] would certainly not have decided upon this course of action were it not for her nephew's moving away to seek a new life in another country [South Africa], and this provides a use of the money for a purpose that is dearer to her heart than owning the painting."

Taylor said Mauthner bought the disputed painting in 1907 from Paul Cassirer and later sold the painting back to him.

It was then acquired by a Berlin art dealer, Marcel Goldschmidt, and later by Alfred Wolf.

In 1963, Wolf's heirs decided to sell his collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings through Sotheby's, where Taylor became the painting's owner.

In 2002 the Orkins first indicated that they were investigating Taylor's painting because they "had reason to believe they were entitled to the painting".

In December last year, Taylor said the Orkins demanded the immediate return of the painting or "a share of the proceeds of its sale".

This is not the first time the Orkin family has applied for restitution for their loss during Hitler's reign.

In June 1954, the German government compensated them for the forced sale of their home in Berlin in August 1938 and for the loss of pension funds seized by the Nazis.

Hamilton, the Orkins' attorney, who described Taylor's court application "entirely non-meritorious" said the family would be filing papers in the next 20 days to oppose the action.

Taylor, meanwhile, says she has "sympathy" with the Orkins but "even the most sympathetic claimants have an obligation to document their claims and pursue them honestly and diligently".

The painting at the centre of the battle was painted in 1889 by Vincent van Gogh while he was in an asylum in France.

Van Gogh had admitted himself to the psychiatric hospital after cutting off part of his left ear.

During this period, critics believe, he produced some of his greatest work including the disputed View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Rémy.

Mauthner fled Germany for South Africa in 1939.

[beckett]

Clearly from the article you just posted, if Mauthner sold her last Van Gogh (not Taylor's painting) in 1933, then Taylor's painting was sold before the Nazis came to power. I reiterate the Mauthner family is being suspiciously cagey about the date.

Are we now to hold that the "holocaust era," as a member of the family calls it, extends to a period even before the Nazis came to power?

Taylor has a rock solid case, unless she comes before an addle-brained judge, which is not out of the question given the quality of some the people on the bench these days.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

The apocryphal Bucky Goldstein is for real?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Bucky Goldstein

After wasting considerable time on the internet when I should have been outside getting some fresh air like mom advised, I take pride in my googling abilities.

But this one escapes me.

?

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

LOL. Comic Steven Wright had a joke about a guy who met a nypho on a train, who claimed she only likes Jewish cowboys. Sez he: "Pleased to meet you. I'm Bucky Goldstein." or something like that.