Wright Letters

[benjulmag]

Thanks for the response and the link to Guggenheim case. I do find it very interesting.

I don't mean to offend by mentioning the instance of stolen WWII art. I brought it up merely to make a legal point. I lost family members in the Holocaust and would never intentionally make reference to that event in a disrespectful manner.

My understanding (or, depending on one's perspective, lack of) of the law is not based, as you imply, on learning how to buy stolen baseball items without having to worry of having to return it at some future date. I would never knowingly acquire an item I have reasonable grounds to believe is stolen, period. What I know about the law is based on my training as an attorney.

Our views of things are based in part on our experiences. Mine, in regard to the way many institutions treat collections entrusted to them, is not overly positive. Much of the Burdick collection (housed in the Metropolitan) has been stolen. Years ago when I was viewing it I noticed the Lajoie card (a really nice example) literally tangling by a single strand of adhesive tape. No one was watching me and had I been so inclined, I could have easily removed it from its page and walked off with it. At the conclusion of my visit, I went to the room attendant, told him of the significant value of that card (at the time $6,000), and implored him to take better actions to safeguard it. He asked me to write him a note to that effect and he would act on it. So I wrote a note identifying the card and its value. Flash forward now six months when a good friend of mine went to view the collection. When I asked him how his visit went, he told me of the strangest occurrence -- that when he viewed the Lajoie, he noticed a note in the page identifying the card as having a value of $6,000. So, six months later, it was still attached to that same single strand but now had a note telling everybody how valuable it was.

Or take the vaunted NYPL. Recently one of its stolen baseball documents was recovered by the FBI. I have been told that close to one year after being informed of the whereabouts of the item, the NYPL has yet to initiate contact to have the item returned.

The point is that many institutions take terrible measures to safeguard their collections, or fail to take reasonable actions to locate their stolen property, or fail to publicize that which is stolen so good faith third party purchasers don't get burned later down the road. Yes, as a collector of 19th century memorabilia, one can argue I have a certain bias toward good faith third party purchasers. But if I'm willing to do my part to pull my head of the sand with that which I am comtemplating acquiring, I don't think its asking too much for institutions to help me by making it easier to identify their stolen items or to know that there is a question of ownership for a particular item.

[Potomac Yank]

This is beginning to border on the Supernatural.

[FrankWakefield]

Basic property law, guys... a bundle of sticks, each stick represents a right or entitlement to the property. A seller can only convey as good of a title as he acquired. A thief has no title, nor can he convey good title. Nor can any subsequent buyer. That is basic, fundamental stuff in law school.


With Unclaimed Luggage in Scottsboro, it is unclaimed. Abandoned. No crime. Not the same at all.

With police bike auctions you left out the part about where the police attempt to locate the rightful owner and return the bike. And then the part about the bike's nominal value versus storage costs, and the municipality's decision to sell or give away bikes after a certain period of time. (Usually to kids that can't afford bikes.) The police aren't auctioning off recovered stolen jewelry like that, now, are they???

I don't really want to digress down to the point where it matters whether either of you went to law school, or not, you obviously think that a good faith buyer should eventually acquire a true ownership interest in items that were stolen. But just so I'll know, did either of you ever attend law school anywhere?

[1lovediane]

Originally Posted by birdman42

My, this thread has brought some folks out of the woodwork. 1lovediane and Freddie Maguire, we'd love to hear your thoughts on other matters. Do you have a particular interest in the topic, or did it just rile you?

As to creating "good title" out of thin air, it happens all the time, and with official sanction. Police departments all across the country hold sales of unclaimed recovered property. They post announcements in the local paper, and that's considered plenty of notice. If you were the original owner, how far do you think you'd get with a claim years later of, "Hey, that's my bike."

And that lost luggage place in Scottsboro, Alabama sells all kinds of material that can be positively identified, including cell phones with their unique IDs. Where would a claim against a buyer from there get you?

I'm certainly not condoning theft of material, whether it's from a private or public source, but once you're given an opportunity to reclaim your property, and you choose not to (and inaction is a choice), then I'd imagine you're ceding some of your prior rights. (Does that create "abandonment"? Only a lawyer could say for sure, though I'd bet that some of the non-lawyers on here will weigh in. Disclaimer: IANAL)

The police sale is almost exactly analogous to the NYPL situation:

• They had property (assuming that an item in question actually was in their collection)
• It was taken from them
• They were notified of its whereabouts
• They chose not to act
• A buyer purchased it in good faith (Here's the difference--at a police sale, the buyer can assume that at one point the item was stolen property; with the material we're discussing here, the buyer can assume, unless information is provided otherwise, that the material is clean)

You may believe that Corey, or Barry, or someone else here is in the wrong (even though you have no evidence to that effect), but I don't think the law would agree.

My rock at the hornet's nest,

Bill

a little knowledge is dangerous; the police situation is preceded by court order; consult your lawyer; this is not rocket science; again, my question: how did the lot # 209 Halper auction, 9-99, become consigned to Hunt? Was the winner of the halper lot the grandparent of the hunt consignor? it's witchcraft. and what is the F.B.I. [Federal Bureau of Incompetence] doing with the halper tip? how can we be worried with such sharp people handling this matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank you of course correctly state the common law rule that a thief cannot convey good title even to a bona fide purchaser, but is there not also the possibility that an action by the true owner -- like any other cause of action -- could be barred by a statute of limitations?

EDIT TO ADD For example, based on very quick internet only research. 1. In New York the limitation period for stolen property is three years. The law upholds that an action for recovery of stolen goods (replevin) “against a person who lawfully comes by a chattel arises, not upon the stealing or the taking, but upon the defendant’s refusal to convey the chattel upon demand.” In other words, this law could be interpreted to mean that the clock on the limitation begins ticking when the current possessor refuses to return the object.

[FrankWakefield]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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]

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]

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?

[FrankWakefield]

Easily, and with good conscience, the stolen Wagner is returned to the original owner. And whoever had possession of the Wagner could seek recourse against the person from whom they bought it.


Needing to know your seller well certainly serves as a deterrent to fencing stolen items, which in turn is a deterrent to theft.

[cyseymour]

An update...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/sp...tml?ref=sports

[benjulmag]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=FrankWakefield;734585]Easily, and with good conscience, the stolen Wagner is returned to the original owner. And whoever had possession of the Wagner could seek recourse against the person from whom they bought it.
QUOTE]

This does not sound like perfect justice to me. So the original owner whose card was worth 25K back when it was stolen now gets a $2 million windfall? And if I owned the Wagner, and am now out $2 million because you ordered me to return it, what's my cause of action against the equally innocent collector or auction house who sold it to me? It can't be rescission because I don't have the card to give back. Are they strictly liable for having sold me stolen property, albeit unknowingly?

[FrankWakefield]

Peter,

First, in your example, you didn't own the Wagner, you only had possession of it, ownership remained with the owner from whom it was stolen.

Yes, you recover from your seller. Now I don't know about an auction house's liability on conveying good title. I think they'd try to avoid that, I don't believe that auction houses pull items because of that potential liability, but rather to avoid possible criminal charges (once they know, or should know, that a lot may well be stolen). And your seller recovers from his seller, all the way back to the thief.

I missed the part where someone who bought a Wagner long ago for $25k wouldn't now be entitled to the card back, even if it had appreciated in value. Are you saying a true owner shouldn't be entitled to the gain?? Steal low, sell high, is that what you're advocating??


At this point I cannot imagine that either of us will change the other's mind; and in no way did I think that a goal here. Simply put, I think the victim of a theft retains ownership, and I see excellent societal reasons for maintaining that. You seem to advocate that a true owner who's victim of a theft reaching a point in time when he'd lose ownership by passage of time, by failing to vigilantly seek and reacquire his personalty, or other ways. I understand that, just don't see the justice in it. It would be good for collectors with good security measures, bad for society. Seems to me that encourages and facilitates the conversion of stolen goods.

And with that I think I'm done with this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank, a good discussion. You got me on my "ownership" of the Wagner.

[FrankWakefield]

Well now, I think I'm not done...

I figure I owe you, Peter, and Corey, a beer. One good pint of a nice hefeveisen certainly would have helped us all fine tune this discussion.
Peace, guys! And I see there's no super-right, ultimate-fair answer. A thief certainly does compound things when he sells his stealings.

[Freddie Maguire]

And the screw turns. The Boston Herald has a new angle on the story of theft and baseball's beginings: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...7&format=email


"Dead Bronx Bomber minority owner Barry Halper sold Boston Red Caps’ player E.B. Sutton’s 1879 contract, which paid the player a whopping $30 for a season, in a 1999 auction. An unknowing California collector paid $4,000 for the document, but according to a newly discovered 1953 letter obtained by the Herald, it was part of a baseball scrapbook swiped from the New York Public Library."

[Ladder7]

Freddie, I believe Barry was referring to the _original_ doc owners and not the current consignor... Please show respect. Thanks

FWIW, I entered the NYPL two years ago to peruse some of these old documents and was troubled to hear from the clerk, "Many items have been stolen over the years and no longer available for handling or viewing".

I would have to return when the collection would be displayed months later, and the window was just for a few days.

Im not an executioner, but these greedy pantloads should be strung up by there cajones.

My question, Where in the heck is Bookman when you need him?!