O\'Keefe v. Snyder Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief...

Description

O’Keefe v. Snyder Supreme Court of New Jersey 1980 Proc Background: TC: O’Keefe filed replevin complaint against Snyder in 1976 for three small pictures claimed to be stolen in 1946. Snyder had purchased them for 35,000 in 1975 from Ulrich Frank and claimed that he had rights to them through adverse possession, which has a 6-year period of limitations pertaining to replevin’s. Granted motion for summary judgement for Snyder in favor of Snyder on the grounds that O’Keefe was barred because her action was not commenced within the 6year period. Appellate Division: reversed and entered judgement for O’Keefe. Based on the grounds that the paintings were stolen, thus the limitations and AP were identical, and Snyder had failed to prove AP, thus O’Keefe can enforce her rights. Facts: O’Keefe’s Side: Notices Cliffs was stolen from Gallery: 1946 (Value of $150 estimated) Notices other two were missing: two weeks later Bry urged O’Keefe to report the loss of the paintings, but O’Keefe declined :1947 O’Keefe authorized Bry to report the theft to the Art Dealer’s Association of America :1972 O’Keefe learned that paintings were in Andrew Crispo Gallery in NY: 1975 O’Keefe discovered the Ulrich A Frank had sold the paintings to Barry Snyder: Feb 11, 1976 Frank: Frank recalls seeing the paintings in his father’s apartment: 1941-1943 Frank formally is given paintings from father: 1965 *Frank claims continuous possession through his father for over 30 years and admits to selling paintings to Snyder- do not trace their history of possession back to O’Keefe* Rule: Discovery Rule: In an appropriate case, a cause of action will not accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered, facts which form the basis of a cause of action. Reasoning: To determine if O’Keefe is entitled to the benefit of the discovery rule: 1) Whether O’Keefe used due diligence to recover paintings at the time of the alleged theft and thereafter 2) Whether at the time of the alleged theft there was an effective method, other than talking to her colleagues, for O’Keefe to alert the world 3) Whether registering paintings with the Art Dealer’s Association of America or any other organization would put a reasonable prudent purchaser of art on constructive notice that someone other than the possessor was the true owner

It is difficult for a possessor of chattels, especially art, to adequately satisfy the open, notorious, and visible elements of AP. Does not fit the art world, thus a new method is needed, until then we will do what we can to make it equitable. Therefore, we feel that the discovery rule is appropriate because it puts the scrutiny on whether or not the owner has acted with due diligence in pursuing their personal property. This will afford greater protections to an innocent owner whose goods are stolen or lost. Also shifts the burden of proof to the owner, to establish facts that would justify deferring the beginning of the period of limitations. Additionally, subsequent transfers will not restart the limitations period. Judgement: Reversed and Remanded in Accordance of this Opinion....