Bakalar v. Vavra
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
619 F.3d 136 (2010)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Franz Grunbaum, a Jewish man, owned a Schiele drawing (the drawing) while he lived in Vienna, Austria. In 1938, Grunbaum was arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis. The Nazis effectively forced Grunbaum to give his wife power of attorney over his affairs, including control of Grunbaum’s property. Grunbaum died in 1941, and his wife died in a concentration camp in 1942. Mrs. Grunbaum’s sister apparently sold the drawing to a Swiss art gallery in 1956. Later in 1956, a New York art gallery purchased the drawing. In 1963, the New York gallery sold the drawing to David Bakalar (plaintiff). Many years later, Bakalar tried to auction the valuable drawing in New York, but Austrian-recognized heirs to Grunbaum’s estate Milos Vavra and Leon Fischer (defendants) challenged Bakalar’s title. Bakalar filed a diversity action against Vavra and Fischer in the Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment that Bakalar was the rightful owner of the drawing. The district court granted summary judgment for Bakalar based on applying Swiss law. Under Swiss law, good-faith purchasers hold valid title to property after five years of possessing an item regardless of the property’s origin. Vavra and Fischer appealed, contending that New York law should apply.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Korman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
