Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, Conn., 724
| Decision Date | 28 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 724,D,724 |
| Citation | 933 F.2d 1131 |
| Parties | Hiram H. HOELZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 90-7160. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Stephen A. Wise, Wise & Layton, New Canaan, Conn., for plaintiff-appellant.
James V. Minor, Stamford Law Dept., Stamford, Conn. (Mary E. Sommer, Corp. Counsel, Deborah M. Steeves, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before IRVING R. KAUFMAN, NEWMAN and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.
The value of art, reflected in staggering prices paid at auction for works by masters such as Van Gogh, has skyrocketed in recent years. Collectors from all over the world have shown a willingness to pay exorbitant sums for the privilege of privately exhibiting paintings, many of which the artists could not sell during their lives. With this increase in value has come the inevitable increase in theft and illegitimate trade. It is not uncommon, however, for purchasers of fraudulently obtained art work to make their acquisitions from reputable art dealers and galleries.
When an original owner of a missing piece of art asserts a claim for repossession against one who has purchased the work in good faith, a crucial legal issue is presented involving accrual of the cause of action--that is, when the statute of limitations begins to run on the owner's claim. If a possessor can somehow prove the owner waited too long to bring suit, then the art work will remain where it is and will not be returned.
Though this case does not involve stolen art per se, it does address that conflict which arises between an original owner and one asserting a claim of rightful possession, a topic of some recent debate among the courts.
Hiram H. Hoelzer, plaintiff-appellant, is a professional restorer of art with a workshop and studio in New York City. In 1971, an emissary of the General Services Administration in Washington, D.C. delivered to Hoelzer six large mural paintings for storage and restoration. Hoelzer understood he would eventually be compensated for his efforts in restoring the art work, which he believed was property of the federal government. The murals, in fact, belong to the City of Stamford (the "City"), defendant-appellee. They were designed to hang on the walls of Stamford's public high school, and this they did from 1934 until the 1970's, when they were inadvertently discarded by construction workers.
In an action seeking a declaratory judgment to quiet title to the murals, Hoelzer contended, inter alia, that the statute of limitations for appellee's claim in replevin had run before the City asserted ownership to the murals and, in any case, that the City had repudiated its rights by abandoning the art work in 1970. A trial was held in district court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Stanton, who entered a partial judgment in favor of the City in October of 1989. 722 F.Supp. 1106. Hoelzer filed an interlocutory appeal with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) (1988).
Alternatively, Hoelzer seeks compensation, in quantum meruit, for his efforts in safeguarding and beginning restoration of the panels. A trial on that claim awaits resolution of the instant appeal.
For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment below and remand the case to the district court for determination of the value of Hoelzer's restoration services.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration created the Works Progress Administration (the "W.P.A.") to provide useful public work to the country's vast number of unemployed citizens during the depression of the 1930's. Employing millions of workers in its eight years of operation, the W.P.A. generated construction and improvement of numerous roads, bridges, buildings and other structures. One element of the program was a project designed to sponsor work in the visual, theatrical and literary arts. Among its other achievements, the arts project generated creation of thousands of murals for display in public buildings around the country.
In 1934, the W.P.A. commissioned the artist James Daugherty to paint a set of six murals for the walls of Stamford High School, a public school operated by defendant-appellee, City of Stamford, in Connecticut. Daugherty painted the murals on light-weight canvas panels which were then affixed to the walls of a music room in the school. The murals remained there from 1934 until 1970, when the entire school underwent major renovation.
Measuring over eight feet tall and more than one-hundred feet long, the complete work depicts an array of scenes involving public figures, events and issues of Daugherty's era. The six panels were painted with vibrant colors, in a style Hoelzer termed "Early American Expressionism," and were entitled: "Education;" "American Rhythm;" "New England Traditions;" "Tragedy-Comedy;" "Sports Frenzy;" and "Science." Three of the panels are signed and dated.
During the course of planning and executing renovation of Stamford High School, various people expressed interest in conservation of the Daugherty murals. In 1967, architects supervising the project wrote to the Superintendent of Schools recommending that the murals be removed in order to avoid inevitable damage due to construction work. The Superintendent wrote back, indicating that the Board of Education agreed the murals should not be harmed in any way, and instructed they be removed and rolled for storage. In addition, Roger Preu, head of the high school art department, recommended to several During the summer of 1970, renovation on the school was begun. At that time, apparently unknown to vacationing school officials and without authorization, workmen removed the murals from the music room walls and placed them, with other construction debris, in a heap near the outside dumpster.
City and school officials that the murals be carefully preserved.
Fortunately, a graduating high school student, Frank Bowne, noticed the panels rolled up and resting close to the trash. Recognizing their value, Bowne rescued them. He brought the murals to his parents' garage in Stamford, where his mother became their unofficial custodian while he went off to college. A year later, in the summer of 1971, an article in U.S. News & World Report, entitled "W.P.A. Art: Rescue of a U.S. Treasure," caught Bowne's attention. The article described the efforts of Mr. Karel Yasko, Supervisor of the Fine Arts Inventory Project of the General Services Administration ("G.S.A.") of the federal government, to locate and preserve W.P.A. art. Bowne wrote to Yasko, describing the Daugherty murals and suggesting they be restored and relocated. Yasko thanked Bowne for his efforts and indicated he would send his summer intern, Stewart Rosenblum, to retrieve them.
In autumn of 1971, Rosenblum went to Stamford and was given the roll of panels by Bowne's mother. Then, on Yasko's instructions, he delivered them to Hiram Hoelzer, an art restorer in nearby Armonk, New York. Rosenblum recalls: "It was my understanding that Mr. Hoelzer was to store the murals on behalf of the United States Government, stabilize them and restore them when money could be found, returning them to the United States Government when so instructed." Hoelzer accepted the murals from Rosenblum and brought them to his workshop in Manhattan.
In the meantime, upon his return from summer vacation, Mr. Preu, of the school's art department, noticed the murals were gone and made several unsuccessful inquiries as to their location. During the next five or six years, Preu discussed the missing murals with various teachers and school administrators but took no further action. There is no evidence that any other school or City official discussed or pursued the matter during that period.
It is undisputed that the murals were in poor condition--wet, torn and dirty--when Hoelzer received them in 1971. In April of 1972, Hoelzer wrote to Yasko describing the state of the murals, the scope of the necessary restoration work and the expected cost. Hoelzer and his assistants embarked upon the massive restoration project and safely stored the murals over the years. Seeking compensation for his efforts, Hoelzer, as we have indicated, has also instituted an action against the City for payment in quantum meruit. Trial on that issue has been postponed pending resolution of the instant appeal.
In 1972, Yasko wrote to Charles Daugherty, the deceased artist's son, informing him of the murals' location. In the late 1970's, Daugherty told John Nerreau, Director of Art and Music for the Stamford Public School System, that the murals still existed. City officials were not given the location of the panels, however, until 1980, when April Paul, a Ph.D. candidate in art history, discovered they were in Hoelzer's possession and took it upon herself to relay this information to Stamford school officials.
Shortly thereafter, Nerreau visited Hoelzer's studio in order to view the murals. In his report to the school superintendent, Nerreau described his conversation with Hoelzer, who assured him that successful restoration of murals was possible but that it would be quite costly. Nerreau recommended that the Mayor of Stamford be consulted regarding both financing of the restoration work and relocation of the murals to a civic area in the City.
Though Hoelzer claims to have indicated to Nerreau during their 1980 meeting that he intended to retain possession of the murals, the lower court found he made no such assertion until a second meeting with City officials six years later.
A year went by after Nerreau's visit, during which time no one from the federal or City government communicated with Hoelzer. Greatly frustrated, Hoelzer called Yasko in 1981, complaining that the G.S.A. had abandoned the Daugherty project and had failed to compensate him for years of storing the huge panels and for his preliminary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reich v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona, 89 Civ. 8361 (CBM).
...26-29). Valley is quite correct in asserting that laches is "independent" of a statute of limitations defense. Hoelzer v. Stamford, 933 F.2d 1131, 1137 (2d Cir.1991). However, the mere fact that laches and statute of limitations are "independent" is not relevant to the inquiry of whether co......
-
Pavlov v. Bank of New York Co., Inc., 99 Civ. 10347(LAK).
...the most significant relationship to the tort. E.g., Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, 722 F.Supp. 1106, 1112 (S.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 933 F.2d 1131 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035, 113 S.Ct. 815, 121 L.Ed.2d 687 (1992); see Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Communications, Inc.,......
-
Palomo Palomov. Demaio, 5:15-CV-1536 (LEK/TWD)
...Regions Bank v. Wieder & Mastroianni, P.C., 526 F. Supp. 2d 411, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 268 F. App'x 17 (2d Cir. 2008).In Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, Conn., the Second Circuit held that an art restorer did not convert the owner's paintings by merely acquiring them from a third party a......
-
Langbord v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury
...clearly does—fitting the pattern of a quiet title action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1655 ; cf. Hoelzer v. City of Stamford , 933 F.2d 1131, 1135–36 (2d Cir. 1991) (deciding a quiet title action for personal property without submitting the case to a jury).The Langbords next argue......
-
New York's Distinctive Rule Regarding Recovery Of Misappropriated Art After The Court Of Appeals' Decision In Mirvish v. Mott
...Songbyrd, 23 F. Supp.2d at 223. 32 Martin v. Briggs, 235 A.D.2d 192, 199 (1st Dep't 1997). 33 Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, Connecticut, 933 F.2d 1131, 1138 (2d Cir. 34 Guggenheim, 153 A.D.2d 143, 149-50 (1st Dep't 1990) (emphasis supplied). 35 Sporn v. MCA Records Inc., 58 N.Y.2d 482 (1983)......
-
When Is It Too Late To Recover Artwork You Own? Laches: The Stealth Defense
...In re Flamenbaum, 27 Misc. 3d 1090, 899 N.Y.S.2d 546, 544 (Surr. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2010). 10 See Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, Connecticut, 933 F.2d 1131, 1138 (2d Cir. 1991) (stating that although the possessor of Works Progress Administration murals from a Stamford, Connecticut school had no......
-
Scope of Due Diligence Investigation in Obtaining Title to Valuable Artwork
...to accomplish what is fair and just in a particular situation." 11. Madden, supra note 1, at 460. See also Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, 933 F.2d 1131, 1138 (2d Cir. 1991) (observing that "[bjecause [stolen] art work can be both extremely valuable and highly marketable to an underground clie......