Timeline for A Swiss watch company seized my watch, saying it was stolen. I bought it 10 years ago. Is that legal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2023 at 19:25 | comment | added | Eugene | The case I cited is a painting that was stolen in peacetime from a gallery, sold for a significant amount of money to an innocent purchaser in the same country and successfully litigated over 30+ y later. How is an expensive watch any different, as far as the inapplicability of adverse possession is concerned? | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 11:36 | comment | added | Steve | In cases where art wasn't originally transferred for significant value (and therefore may have been transferred without checks), there is less a concern about depriving the new owner later who has only discovered an unearned windfall (rather than being deprived of the purchase price). | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 11:34 | comment | added | Steve | @Eugene, but you're begging the question of ownership. There may have been no prior finding that there was any crime, or by whom. At any rate, if the current owner's purchase was bona fide (and the passage of years may mean that most or all of the details of a purchase are forgotten, let alone supportable by independent evidence), I think the courts would be very reluctant to restore the goods. Artworks are not a good example because there was often known wartime looting, and because transferring art for large values, typically involves checks being made (on the genuineness, if nothing else). | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 23:38 | comment | added | Eugene | @Steve for an example of common law interpretations of how adverse possession applies to chattel: h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/68 - relevant quote: "Our decision begins with the principle that, generally speaking, if the paintings were stolen, the thief acquired no title and could not transfer good title to others regardless of their good faith and ignorance of the theft". In this case, the appeals court ruled that adverse possession didn't apply, because it wasn't adverse, like i said previously. The case is about artwork, but not decided on any law related to artwork. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 23:26 | comment | added | Eugene | @Steve that's the statute of limitations for being prosecuted for the crime of (theft/tortious conversion), not a time period after which ownership legally changes. Unless specified by something like Adverse possession laws(and yes, Adverse possession also does apply to chattel, but with different rules than land), ownership doesn't legally change. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 22:28 | comment | added | Steve | @Eugene, there may be special regimes that apply to those artefacts. In general, theft offences have a limitation period of a few years, and I imagine tortious conversion is the same. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 20:12 | comment | added | Eugene | @Steve look at it another way: artwork that was stolen doesn't becomes un-stolen, even after decades of possession by innocent buyers. Artworks looted during WW2 by the Nazis and even earlier by the communists are still being litigated over and returned to the rightful owner's descendants. A stolen watch isn't fundamentally different, just more pedestrian. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 19:42 | comment | added | Steve | @Eugene, I think the general rule concerns limitation periods. I've always understood "adverse possession" to concern land not chattels, but the law has always sought to limit stale claims, if for no other reason than that innocent buyers can scarcely be expected to have memory (let alone evidence) of good faith purchases after many years pass. | |
| Mar 7, 2023 at 9:41 | comment | added | Tristan | @Eugene I am aware. Adverse possession is still an important caveat to the claim in this answer that 'if the person that purported to sell/give it to you didn't have good title (because it was stolen), you don't have good title either. And it doesn't matter how long you and your ancestors have "owned" it' because you can in fact acquire good title after buying an item from someone without good title | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 19:46 | comment | added | Eugene | @Tristan Yeah, but the difference is that Adverse possession has to be, well, Adverse for the law to apply, i.e. the owner has to have the means to know about the possession and decide not to contest it at the time. Stolen property that neither the owner or possessor knows about, is by definition not adversarial and doesn't count. | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 16:52 | comment | added | Yakk | @bdsl Yes, "adverse possession chattel" is what you need to search for. | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 16:16 | history | edited | Martin Bonner supports Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Missing )
|
| Mar 6, 2023 at 14:24 | comment | added | bdsl | I've only ever heard of adverse possession in relation to land (and buildings) in England. Are you sure it's applicable at all to personal / portable property? | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 10:46 | comment | added | Tristan | Probably worth noting that there is still the concept of adverse possession, whereby someone who does not have good title can acquire good title after a certain period of time. It generally applies in much more restricted circumstances (especially for personal property, like a watch) than in civil law systems | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 16:33 | history | edited | Martin Bonner supports Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Remove reference to historical artifacts.
|
| Mar 5, 2023 at 13:46 | history | answered | Martin Bonner supports Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |