Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
153 F. Supp. 3d 1148
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Painting Rue St. Honoré, apres midi, effet de pluie by Camille Pissarro was wrongfully taken from Lilly Cassirer Neubauer by the Nazi regime.
- Lilly, who inherited the Painting in 1926, was forced to transfer it in 1939 to Nazi appraiser Scheidwimmer to escape Germany, in exchange for a blocked account and a devalued price.
- The Painting surfaced in the U.S. in 1951 and passed through several sales before being purchased by Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza in 1976 and later loaned to/held by Spain’s Foundation in Madrid since 1992.
- Claude Cassirer, Lilly’s heir, filed a restitution/damages action in 2005 after learning of the Painting’s location and the Foundation’s possession; he resided in California from 1980 until his death in 2010.
- The Foundation argues ownership under Spanish law via adverse possession and challenges the California retroactive extension of the statute of limitations; Plaintiffs contend Spain’s law should not apply and raise issues of laches and due process.
- The court grants the Foundation summary judgment on ownership by Spanish adverse possession and denies summary adjudication on California law, with related disposition to be formalized by judgment; plaintiffs are allowed supplemental declarations for evidentiary purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which law governs adverse possession of a movable painting | Cassirer favors California law | Foundation favors Spain law | Spain law governs adverse possession under federal and California tests |
| Whether Spain’s adverse possession applies to vest title in the Foundation | Spain does not apply or is inapplicable | Spain’s laws apply and support ownership by adverse possession | Spain’s adverse possession rules apply; Foundation becomes owner |
| Constitutional challenge to amended California § 338(c) | Amendment deprives Foundation of property without due process | Statute serves legitimate interests in art recovery | Amendment retroactivity violates due process to the extent it deprives Foundation of ownership |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoenberg v. Exportadora de Sal, S.A. de C.V., 930 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal choice-of-law rules apply in FSIA actions)
- Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 (Sup. Ct. 1885) (retroactive statutes affecting title may violate due process)
- McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 48 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (California governmental interest test; adverse possession of personal property)