O’Keeffe v. Snyder Case Brief

Summary of O’Keeffe v. Snyder, Supreme Ct. of NJ (1980)

Parties: O’Keeffe is the original painter who alleges theft of her work. Snyder is the alleged purchaser who claims he bought the paintings in good faith and for valuable consideration and thus is a bona fide purchaser, and that PL’s claim is barred by statute of limitations.

Cause of action/remedy sought: PL seeks equitable action of paintings (which she painted and owned) returned to her by DF.

Procedural History: Trial court granted summary judgment for DF. Reversed on appeal. This court reverses (reinstates trial court ruling).

Facts: O’Keeffe, the painter of original works of art, alleges her paintings were stolen in 1946. Snyder asserted he was a good faith purchaser of the paintings, had title by adverse possession, and O’Keeffe’s action was barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations. O’Keeffe, upon finding out that the paintings had been taken, did not report the theft to her husband, who put the paintings up for auction, or to the authorities, nor did she register the paintings. O’Keeffe did tell some of her art world friends about it, until 1972 when she reported the loss to Art Dealer’s Association of America.

Snyder tried to trace the origins of the painting via financial transactions, leading up to his purchase (the Franks in 1941-1943 to their son by gift in 1965, then to Snyder sometime before 1972). Neither party traces their acquisition back to O’Keefe.

Issue(s): Under NJ property law, does the statute of limitations for taking legal action on alleged stolen chattels begin when the original owner finds the current possessor and alleged owner by purchase?

Under the same law, Is tacking permitted to raise a claim of adverse possession to bar a suit in equity for the return of a chattel?

Holding: No. The statute of limitations begins to run upon the discovery of the dispossession, not when the person finds the actual owner. It is the original owner’s job to take reasonably prudent action as any other owner would when she feels a painting has been stolen.

Yes. Tacking is permitted to show privity of current and previous owners and their good faith to interpose a claim for conversion.

Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: As to the discovery rule, the determination as to whether the statute of limitations has run on her conversion claim rests on the time when she first came to know or reasonably know through the exercise of due diligence, of the cause of action, including the identity of the possessor of the paintings.

However, the court found it difficult to determine when a painting could be recorded as owned or subsequently stolen. The court suggests that there ought to be some system implemented to such an effect. But the implementation of the discovery rule can help at least in some equitable way, the original owner’s cause. In effect, it switches the BOP to the PL to show they in fact took reasonable steps to pursue a missing chattel.

That the current possessor of the paintings tried to show by tacking that he in fact was a good faith purchaser like those before him, is an appropriate way of proving ownership of the chattels. The statute of limitations, however, does begin to run every time a chattel is passed from one party to another. It would undermine the principle of tacking as a means of quieting titles and protecting against stale claims.

Rule: To establish adverse possession to chattels, the rule of law has been that the possession must be hostile, actual, visible, exclusive, and continuous. Open and visible in this context will now be upon the discovery of the missing chattel:

(1) did the owner use due diligence to recover the chattel at the time of the alleged dispossession/theft?

(2) whether at the time of the alleged dispossession/theft there was an effective method to put others on notice?

(3) whether registering the chattel or reporting the chattel with an authoritative institution would put prospective buyers on notice of the possibility that they could be purchasing in stolen goods?

Did court avoid issues?: No.

Dicta: The discovery rule replaces statute of limitations, although the result does not change.

Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner