## Facts

- Georgia O’Keeffe created three small paintings (*Cliffs*, *Seaweed*, *Fragments*) that were kept at “An American Place,” a New York gallery operated by her husband, Alfred Stieglitz.
- In 1946, O’Keeffe discovered the paintings were missing and contended they had been stolen, though the circumstances of the disappearance were disputed.
- O’Keeffe did not report the disappearance to police or an art-theft registry in 1946; she registered the works with the Art Dealers Association of America in 1972.
- In 1975, Barry Snyder (an art dealer) bought the paintings from Ulrich A. Frank for $35,000 and displayed them in his Princeton gallery.
- In 1976, O’Keeffe saw the paintings at Snyder’s gallery and demanded their return; Snyder refused, asserting good-faith purchase, adverse possession, and that the replevin action was time-barred.

## Issues

1. Whether a thief can convey good title in stolen chattels to a good-faith purchaser.
2. When the six-year limitations period for replevin begins to run for stolen art: at the theft or when the owner, using due diligence, discovers (or should discover) the chattel’s location and possessor.
3. Whether adverse-possession concepts should control the limitations analysis for stolen personal property, or whether a discovery-rule approach applies.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a thief cannot acquire title to stolen chattels and cannot transfer good title, regardless of a purchaser’s good faith.
- The court adopted a discovery rule for replevin of stolen art: the cause of action accrues when the owner first knew, or reasonably should have known through due diligence, the identity of the possessor and the location of the property.
- The court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment for O’Keeffe and remanded for a plenary hearing because disputed facts precluded summary judgment, including facts bearing on O’Keeffe’s diligence and when her claim accrued.

## Legal Principles

- A good-faith purchaser cannot obtain good title from a thief in stolen personal property.
- For replevin of stolen art, the statute of limitations begins when the owner, exercising due diligence, discovers or should discover the facts giving rise to the claim, including the possessor’s identity and the chattel’s location.
- The diligence inquiry may consider: the owner’s recovery efforts at the time of loss, whether effective notice mechanisms existed to alert the art market, and whether registration or similar steps would have provided constructive notice to reasonably prudent purchasers.
- Summary judgment is improper where factual disputes exist regarding diligence, notice practices in the market, and the timing of discoverability relevant to limitations.

## Conclusion

The court preserved the rule that theft cannot confer title, but held that timeliness in stolen-art replevin turns on a discovery rule requiring due diligence; because the record contained material factual disputes on that issue, it remanded for fact-finding rather than awarding the paintings on summary judgment.


O’Keeffe v. Snyder, 83 N.J. 478, 416 A.2d 862 (N.J. 1980)