## Facts

- The American Numismatic Society (ANS) owned rare coins that were stolen from its collection before 1983.
- Roy E. Naftzger, Jr., a coin collector, later acquired certain rare coins through ordinary commercial channels, unaware they were stolen.
- ANS determined that coins in Naftzger’s possession matched coins stolen from its collection and demanded their return.
- Naftzger refused and sued to quiet title; ANS cross-complained seeking return of the coins.
- Even assuming Naftzger was an innocent purchaser, he could not obtain valid title if the coins were stolen because a thief cannot convey good title.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1983 amendment to California Code of Civil Procedure § 338(c), providing discovery-based accrual for certain stolen items, applies retroactively to thefts occurring before its effective date.
2. If the 1983 amendment is not retroactive, when a cause of action accrues under the pre-1983 version of § 338(c) for specific recovery of stolen personal property.
3. Whether ANS’s claim was time-barred under the correct accrual rule.

## Decision

- The court held the 1983 amendment to § 338(c) does not apply retroactively to thefts occurring before the amendment’s effective date.
- The court held the pre-1983 version of § 338(c) contained an implicit discovery rule for actions to recover stolen personal property.
- Under that pre-1983 rule, the cause of action accrues when the owner actually discovers the identity of the person in possession of the stolen property, not when the theft occurred.
- The court held accrual under the pre-1983 statute is not conditioned on the owner’s diligence in attempting to discover the possessor’s identity.
- The court reversed the judgment for Naftzger based on the statute of limitations and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Absent clear legislative intent, statutory amendments are presumed to operate prospectively and do not apply retroactively.
- For thefts predating the 1983 amendment, Code of Civil Procedure § 338(c) imposes a three-year limitations period for specific recovery of stolen personal property, accruing upon actual discovery of the possessor’s identity.
- Under the pre-1983 accrual rule recognized in this case, the owner’s diligence (or lack of diligence) does not affect when accrual occurs.
- An innocent purchaser cannot obtain valid title to stolen property because a thief cannot transfer valid title.

## Conclusion

The court rejected retroactive application of the 1983 statutory discovery rule but recognized an implicit discovery-based accrual rule in the prior statute: for pre-1983 thefts, the three-year period begins when the owner actually learns who possesses the stolen property, regardless of diligence, requiring reversal of a judgment that treated the claim as time-barred under a different accrual theory.


Naftzger v. Am. Numismatic Soc'y, 42 Cal. App. 4th 421, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 784 (Ct. App. 1996)