DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 21--------------------------------------------------
       O’Keefe v. Snyder
       By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:15 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FACTS:  O’Keefe (plaintiff) alleges that she was the owner of
       three paintings that were stolen from a New York art gallery in
       1946.  The defendant (Snyder) asserted the he was the purchaser
       for value of the paintings, he had title by adverse possession,
       and O’Keefe’s action was barred by the expiration of the statute
       of limitations that was 6 years.
       -
       HIS FATHER
       -
       NOTES ON THEFT/FRAUD & TITLES
       If a thief steals a painting and sells it to buyer 1 who sells
       it to buyer 2, all of the titles are void other than the True
       Owner (THEFT = VOID TITLE)
       If fraud is committed, buyer 1 gets a VOIDABLE title.  True
       owner can retain the property if the person who committed the
       fraud is still in possession of the property.  If the person who
       commits the fraud sells the property to a bona fide purchaser,
       with no notice of the fraud, who is not at fault, the law gives
       title to the bona fide purchaser (gets a good title, good
       against the world including the true owner). (FRAUD = VOIDABLE
       TITLE)
       Shelter Doctrine
       TO(fraud) X (committed fraud, voidable
       title)Bona Fide Purchaser (good title) Y
       (had notice of the fraud, good title)
       Limit to Shelter Doctrine: Anti-Laundering Doctrine
       If the Bona Fide purchaser sells the property back to X
       (committed fraud), X has a voidable title, X DOESN’T IMPROVE HIS
       TITLE
       ENTRUSTMENT DOCTRINE
       True owner entrusts the chattel to a merchant who sells that
       kind of chattel, that merchant (voidable title) under the UCC
       has the power to pass a good title to a bona fide purchaser
       (good title)To broaden the fraud aspect, to facilitate
       commerce
       -
       -
       fide purchaser actually gets the chattel
       SNYDER’S THEORY IS THAT THE ENTRUSTMENT HAPPENED
       O’KEEFE’S THEORY IS THAT THEFT HAPPENED
       PROCEDURAL FACTS:
       -
       -
       -
       hearing
       ISSUE:  Who has the rightful title to the paintings?
       RULES:
       -
       of good title
       -
       good title to a good faith purchaser for value in certain
       circumstances
       -
       good or chattels must be commenced within 6 years after the
       accrual of the cause action.
       -
       not accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of
       reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered,
       facts which form the basis of a cause of action.
       -
       visible, exclusive, and continuous…
       ANALYSIS:
       -
       -
       (cause of action will not accrue until the injured party
       discovers or should have discovered, facts which form the basis
       of a cause of action.
       -
       WITH THE DISCOVERY RULE (THIS ONLY APPLIES TO PERSONAL PROPERTY)
       IF HE GIVES US A QUESTION ABOUT CHATTEL, WE SHOULD DISCUSS BOTH
       ADVERSE POSSESSION AND THE DISCOVERY RULE
       CONSLUSION:
       -
       consecutive periods of possession by parties with privity with
       each other
       *****************************************************