DeWeerth v. Baldinger
Decision Date | 16 October 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 83 Civ. 1233 (VLB).,83 Civ. 1233 (VLB). |
Citation | 804 F. Supp. 539 |
Parties | Gerda Dorothea DEWEERTH, Plaintiff, v. Edith Marks BALDINGER, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. WILDENSTEIN & CO., INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Joseph D. Becker, John R. Horan, Fox & Horan, New York City, for plaintiff.
Leslie Gordon Fagen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton and Garrison, New York City, for defendant.
Jeremy G. Epstein, New York City, for third party defendant.
This action concerns plaintiff's claim to the ownership of a painting by Claude Monet entitled "Champs de Ble a Vetheuil" (the "Monet"), which was stolen from plaintiff in 1945 and purchased in good faith by the defendant in 1957 from third-party defendant Wildenstein & Co. On April 20, 1987, after a bench trial, I issued a decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter and ordered that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff requiring that the painting be returned to the plaintiff. DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 658 F.Supp. 688 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (the "April 20 Order")1 As discussed in greater detail infra, that decision was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals. DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 836 F.2d 103 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied 486 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 2823, 100 L.Ed.2d 924 (the "December 30 Order"). The Court of Appeals found that in this diversity case I had misapplied New York law.
Plaintiff has now moved for relief under Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. The factual findings which I made with respect to the trial of this matter are necessary to consideration of plaintiff's motion and are repeated in part II below for convenience.
For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Rule 60 motion must be granted. In summary, the highest court of New York State has now ruled in Guggenheim v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311, 567 N.Y.S.2d 623, 569 N.E.2d 426 (1991), subsequent to the 1987 Second Circuit decision, that state law requires — and, according to the state court ruling, would previously have also required — a result which is consonant with my original determination. Because of the primacy of the state courts in determining interpretation of state law under principles of federalism, as discussed in greater detail below, the Guggenheim decision, albeit stating that it also reflects prior law, is a new development justifying Rule 60 relief.
The issue of laches, also discussed in greater detail below, was mentioned but left open in the 1987 Second Circuit decision, and raised anew by the defendant. The plight of good faith purchasers of art is an important factor in evaluating stolen art cases, as is the need to deter theft of art destined for the New York market. Both interests are relevant to balancing prejudice and reasonableness. Here, however, a nonbankrupt third party defendant from whom defendant purchased the stolen art remains in the case. Where upstream purchasers failed to exercise due care in purchasing, including examining the placement of an artwork in its context, its so-called "provenance," each defendant can, of course, follow up the chain of prior custody.
While in the wake of Guggenheim, supra, the Second Circuit declined to alter its mandate upon motion, Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976) suggests that this may have been because the district court rather than the appellate court is the appropriate initial forum for seeking redress due to post-decisional changes in law or facts. Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 826, 106 S.Ct. 86, 88 L.Ed.2d 70 (1985) also indicates that the district court is the appropriate tribunal where there is, as I find here, a "material change of circumstances. ..."— in this instance because of the ruling of the State's highest court contrary to the 1987 federal appellate decision, and the state Court's assertion that its position reflects prior state law as well.2
There follows a reiteration of certain factual findings contained in my decision of April 20, 1987:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCarthy v. Olin Corp.
...attempted to reopen her case in order to have her dispute decided in accordance with the actual law of New York. See DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 804 F.Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Understandably, however, this court ruled that the subsequent clarification of state law did not justify disturbing a f......
-
DeWeerth v. Baldinger
...October 16, 1992, Judge Broderick granted DeWeerth's motion and once again ordered Baldinger to surrender the Monet to DeWeerth. 804 F.Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Judgment was entered on February 2, 1993, and this appeal I. Was the District Court Precluded from Considering DeWeerth's Rule 60(......
-
Williams v. Nat'l Gallery Art
...earlier, or sue in the United States in the decade after Altmann was decided. 21. Plaintiffs argue, relying on Deweerth v. Baldinger, 804 F. Supp. 539, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), rev'd, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir. 1994), that Defendants are not prejudiced because presumably none of the unavailable witn......
-
Hernandez v. Results Staffing, Inc.
...to constitute a "material change in circumstances," the district court granted the plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion. DeWeerth v. Baldinger , 804 F.Supp. 539, 541 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). In doing so, the district court noted that the Second Circuit had declined to alter its mandate in the wake of Guggenh......
-
Ascertaining the laws of the several states: positivism and judicial federalism after Erie.
...See id. (261) Id. at 430. (262) Id. at 431. (263) Id. (264) Id. at 430. (265) Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). (266) DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 804 F. Supp. 539, 550 (S.D.N.Y. (267) Id. at 547. (268) Id. (269) DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1269 (2d Cir. 1994). (270) Id. at 1273. (271) Id. at 12......
-
Scope of Due Diligence Investigation in Obtaining Title to Valuable Artwork
...Id. 48. Id. 49. Id. 50. Id. 51. Id. at 428-29. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit observed in DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 804 F. Supp. 539, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir. 1994), cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 512 (1994), the court in Lube!/announced......
-
Federalism is alive and well and living in New York: Honorable Hugh R. Jones Memorial Lecture.
...(10) Menzel v. List, 22 A.D.2d 647, 647, 253 N.Y.S.2d 43, 43 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1964) (citations omitted). (11) DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 804 F. Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y. (12) DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1277 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Menzel, 22 A.D.2d at 647, 253 N.Y.S.2d at 44). (13) DeWe......