Wright Letters

FrankWakefield · #1 07-07-2009, 08:58 PM

Peter,

I don't know what NY law is. I don't know if KY has something like what you've posted, or not. Statutes of limitations limit the commencement of civil actions. And what you have there says that the 3 year clock starts running when the possessor refuses the owner's request for return of the stolen item. Not when the owner knows it is stolen, or knows who has it, but only after the return has been requested and denied.

Did the NYPL know who bought the stuff, or just that it had been sold at auction? Did NYPL ever ask for it back?? Only if NYPL asked the current possessor and return was refused, then would the 3 years start to run. And if they've not yet asked for it back, then they still could seek replevin.

So how's a fellow to feel good about an item in his collection if he knows it was stolen? Even if the fellow bought the item with good faith, and at a fair value?? And would he feel the same way if the item was stolen from him and then ended up in someone else's collection after some good faith purchases???

Freddie Maguire · #2 07-07-2009, 09:08 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/sp...?_r=1&emc=eta1

I think David Hunt had a change of heart. I suppose the FBI can be persuasive.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 07-07-2009, 09:08 PM

Frank assuming what I found on the internet is NY law, I agree with your interpretation -- the statute wouldn't start running until a demand was made. Other states might have more restrictive rules, NY probably has special reason to be more pro-owner on this issue.

My only point was that there could be circumstances -- as Corey suggested --that a true owner cannot recover stolen property from a bona fide purchaser, even though that purchaser technically may not have "title."

As for the ethics of the situation I find that a tough call. Both the true owner and the BFP have sound claims and it seems unfair to penalize the BFP because he unwittingly bought from a thief, or more likely, from someone else who did. At the same time of course why should the owner suffer? I think there is no good answer -- as my torts teacher said, it is a situation calling for an arbitrary rule.

FrankWakefield · #4 07-07-2009, 09:12 PM

I wouldn't feel sorry at all for the BFP... he can go back against his seller once the true owner has recovered his stuff.

What a mess it would be if the law was that if you can steel it and keep it hidden for some period of time, then whoever you sell it to has good title... Nope, I don't wanna live there.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 07-07-2009, 09:14 PM

And if the seller/thief is in jail and has no resources, what then? Why should an innocent be punished?

Peter_Spaeth · #6 07-07-2009, 09:16 PM

And think of the uncertainty "your" regime creates -- no one can be secure in their possessions because it might turn out they were stolen long ago. I think it is just an inherently bad situation with no good answer.

EDIT TO ADD And suppose it's a longer chain than three people -- do you have to unwind it at every step of the way? Suppose the item is the PSA 8 Wagner. It's been through at least five changes of ownership maybe more. Suppose someone could prove it was stolen from them 25 years ago? How do you propose dealing with that?

FrankWakefield · #7 07-07-2009, 09:31 PM

I see... forget caveat emptor. The buyer need no longer figure out what he's buying, nor bother to know he has a reliable and trustworthy seller.

I need never buy at full price again. Just find what I want, get someone to steal it, then buy it from them for a close to full price.

caveat erus. Let the owner beware.... Guess I need to sell all of my stuff before someone steals it.

Truthfully, buy stuff from trustworthy folks. That's a solution.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 07-07-2009, 09:43 PM

Frank I am just saying I don't like either outcome.

But tell me, how would you resolve my Wagner hypothetical, and I will keep it simple in that there are only 5 intervening transactions (several through auction houses). It's in your courtroom. The owner from 25 years ago convinces you it was stolen from him. What do you do?

benjulmag · #9 07-08-2009, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I wouldn't feel sorry at all for the BFP... he can go back against his seller once the true owner has recovered his stuff.

What a mess it would be if the law was that if you can steel it and keep it hidden for some period of time, then whoever you sell it to has good title... Nope, I don't wanna live there.

Often times with enough passage of time it will no longer be possible for the BFP to go back against his seller. Also, and most important, we're talking here about the narrow instance of the rightful owner doing nothing while knowing good faith third parties are transacting the item.

In the end, as with all things in law, there is no perfect answer. Under any proposed solution, one can always come up with instances in which someone is going to get screwed. But with the laches defense by the BFP, at least in that instance a court can carefully balance the equities and have the option of ruling that under the appropriate set of circumstances, the BFP can retain ownership.