Good Faith Gifting?
Would you accept a stolen Van Gogh as a gift? Of course not.
What if the work wasn't so much "stolen," as it was "nationalized" for the good of the homeland? To help fund stimulus grants, say the work was sold twenty years later to an old college friend of yours, and thirty years after that your college friend gave it to your son or daughter as a graduation gift. Should your child accept?
What if your child is the President of Yale University at the time?
The story behind this re-fashioned hypothetical can be found here.
In March of 2009, Yale attempted to pre-empt a lawsuit by a decedant of Ivan Morozov, who is referred to here by TIME critic Richard Lacayo as "one of the two outstanding Russian collectors and patrons of modern art early in the 20th century," claiming Yale wrongfully acquired Van Gogh's "The Night Cafe" in the 1930's. The crux of the argument suggests that the nationalization of property after the Russian Civil War was unlawful, and Yale's claim to title after the work was purchased by the eventual donor from the Russian government amounts to "art laundering." Morozov's decendant, Pierre Kanowaloff, in late May filed a counterclaim in the suit alleging Yale's acquisition of the painting lacked good faith.
Yale takes the approach that the donor's purchase from the Russian government was legal, and Yale's acceptance of the gift equally so. Moreover, Yale argues museums across the globe hold works of art previously nationalized by the Russian government in the early 1900's, and that sales by the Russian government of such works are generally considered valid.
And the money quote: Yale feels it is not the place for American courts to "undo the entire program of property reform" which took place in early twentieth century Russia.
The result of this case may have reaching effects for many collections. Stay tuned.
Yale University v. Konowaloff, 3:2009cv00466, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (New Haven).
