MFA suit

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonDotCom. Show BostonDotCom's posts

    MFA suit

    The Museum of Fine Arts filed suit this week to establish ownership of a disputed oil painting, which an Austrian woman claims was sold under duress by her relative during the Nazi occupation of Austria. Who do you think should be the rightful owner of the painting? Do you think federal court is the appropriate place to decide ownership?
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprint. Show sprint's posts

    MFA suit

    The painting belongs to the MOS - without question. How does the person decide at this point that it was their painting -"woman claims was sold under duress by her relative" - yeah right, this is all about money. How does she prove it was hers to begin with?? What a waste of time and money for our already busy court system.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from paigemkr. Show paigemkr's posts

    MFA suit

    Is the federal court the right place to decide ownership? Apparently as the MFA can't seem to do the right thing. The other posters who note the horrible history of artworks "obtained" during the 1930s and 1940s in Europe by the MFA and other major museums are right on the mark. This isn't the first time the MFA has been accused of knowingly keeping art that was likely stolen or obtained under duress from this time.

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from catwalk. Show catwalk's posts

    MFA suit

    From an odd point of view:

    My Jewish grandfather who was in the midst of excaping Nazi Germany also purchased a painting at the then fair market value from a Jewish art owner who needed cash to get out and survive. Recently the decendants of the art owner's family have attempted to regain the painting from my family, saying it was "Sold Under Duress".

    ? So what is the REAL story behind why the family NOW has finally decided they want the painting back?

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    MFA suit

    Some here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the legal meaning the term 'duress'. Voluntarily entering into a real estate deal that goes sour or loosing money on the stock market has nothing to do with duress.

    Duress is when one is forced to enter into a contact, unwillingly. For example, if someone is literally holding a gun to your head, and ordering you to sign a contract ( or hand over a painting) that is duress and voids the contract or transaction.

    The problem these people have is proving whomever previously owned the painting indeed was subjected to duress, while signing over the painting. For any number of reasons, Its possible they just made a bad business deal.

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from teddoyle. Show teddoyle's posts

    MFA suit

    Let's see, the former painting-owner's son's "select niece and designated heiress" believes that SHE, twice removed and at-best tangentially-related to the seller, knows the motivation of the owner.

    Further, it is not known if the owner would have given the painting to that particular son, had he not sold it...nor is it known if the son would have passed it on to his niece, rather than selling it himself.

    My advice? For get-rich-quick-scamming, "Deal or No Deal." might be a better bet...
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dazza02129. Show dazza02129's posts

    MFA suit

    I agree with previous post regarding the definition of 'under duress'.
    It seems that the owner sold the painting because of the horrendous conditions during Nazi occupied Austria as a means to SURVIVE, but was not 'under duress' of the Nazis, ie he was not forced by the Nazis to sell this painting. He was 'forced' by dire straights. Which could be applied to any situation when someone needs to sell something, even if they don't want to, in order to get by.

    The painting was sold voluntarily. He needed the money, and found a way to get it. Now, 70 years after the sale, a distant relative wants it back? It's truly sad what happened in the holocaust and what happended to this family. There is no disputing that. But the MFA came across this painting in an honest fashion and they have right to it. It's insulting to the MFA to accuse them of 'reaping the benefits' from the Holocaust horrors, especially now. They've had the painting for 35+ years, and the family now wants it....why NOW?