## Facts

- Gerda Dorothea DeWeerth, a German citizen, owned a Claude Monet painting, *Champs de Blé à Vétheuil*, inherited in 1922.
- In 1943, DeWeerth sent the painting to her sister’s home in Bavaria for safekeeping during World War II.
- Around 1945, after American troops were quartered at the sister’s home, the painting disappeared.
- From 1946 to 1950, DeWeerth made several inquiries (including to a lawyer, an art historian, and West German criminal police) but did not pursue sustained follow-up or broader efforts commonly used in the art trade.
- In 1957, Edith Marks Baldinger, a U.S. citizen, bought the painting in New York from Wildenstein & Co., Inc., in good faith and without notice of any title defect.
- Baldinger possessed the painting for about 30 years, primarily privately, with occasional museum loans.
- In 1982, DeWeerth learned Baldinger possessed the painting; DeWeerth made a demand for return, which Baldinger refused.
- DeWeerth sued in federal court (diversity) for return of the painting, alleging conversion under New York law.

## Issues

1. Under New York law, may a true owner rely on the “demand and refusal” rule to delay accrual of a conversion claim against a good-faith purchaser without exercising reasonable diligence to locate the property?
2. If due diligence is required, did DeWeerth’s efforts to find the painting satisfy that standard so that her 1982 demand timely triggered the three-year limitations period?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court and directed dismissal of the complaint as time-barred under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(3).
- The court held that New York’s demand-and-refusal accrual rule against a good-faith purchaser is subject to a requirement that the owner exercise reasonable diligence to locate the stolen property and not unreasonably delay making demand.
- On the undisputed record, DeWeerth’s limited post-war inquiries and decades of inaction did not constitute reasonable diligence; her 1982 demand was unreasonably delayed and could not postpone the statute of limitations.
- Because DeWeerth’s claim was dismissed, Baldinger’s third-party indemnity claim against Wildenstein failed as derivative.

## Legal Principles

- In New York, a conversion claim against a good-faith purchaser of stolen property generally accrues upon the owner’s demand and the possessor’s refusal.
- An owner cannot indefinitely defer accrual by delaying demand; courts may require the owner to exercise reasonable diligence in trying to locate the property and to avoid unreasonable delay in making demand.
- Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(3), conversion claims are subject to a three-year limitations period; where the owner’s lack of diligence renders demand unreasonably delayed, the claim is barred even if suit follows promptly after refusal.
- Statutes of limitations reflect policies of repose and transactional security that can limit recovery against good-faith purchasers in long-stale stolen-property disputes.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit concluded that, under its view of New York law, the demand-and-refusal rule does not permit an owner to wait decades without reasonable search efforts before demanding return from a good-faith purchaser; because DeWeerth did not act with reasonable diligence, her conversion claim to recover the Monet was untimely and dismissed.


DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 836 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1987)