## Facts

- The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation claimed ownership of a 1912 Marc Chagall gouache donated to the museum in 1937 and later missing from its collection.
- Museum records last clearly accounted for the gouache in 1965; the museum later concluded it was stolen during an inventory conducted between 1969 and 1970, likely by an employee.
- After discovering the loss in the late 1960s, the museum did not notify law enforcement, art dealers, or other institutions about the theft.
- In 1967, Rachel Lubell and her husband bought the gouache from a reputable Madison Avenue gallery, allegedly without knowledge of any theft, and displayed it in their home for about 20 years.
- In 1986, the museum located the gouache through information arising from an auction appraisal and demanded its return; Lubell refused.
- The museum filed a replevin action in 1987 seeking return of the gouache, then valued at approximately $200,000.

## Issues

1. In a replevin action against a good-faith purchaser of stolen art, does the statute of limitations require the true owner to exercise reasonable diligence to locate the property before making a demand?
2. Does the owner’s delay in searching for the property affect accrual of the cause of action, or is accrual governed solely by demand and refusal?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and allowed the replevin action to proceed.
- The court held that, under New York law, a replevin claim against a good-faith purchaser accrues when the true owner demands return and the possessor refuses.
- The museum’s failure to take earlier steps to locate the gouache was not relevant to the statute of limitations defense.
- The court left open that the museum’s delay could be considered under the equitable defense of laches.

## Legal Principles

- For replevin against a good-faith purchaser, demand and refusal are substantive elements that determine accrual for statute of limitations purposes.
- New York does not apply a discovery-based accrual rule that would start limitations when the owner knew or should have known the property’s location.
- The owner’s lack of diligence in searching for stolen property does not, by itself, time-bar a replevin claim under the statute of limitations in this setting.
- Delay and its consequences may be addressed through laches, which can bar relief if the owner’s delay is unreasonable and prejudices the possessor.

## Conclusion

The court held that a museum seeking replevin of stolen artwork from a good-faith purchaser is not required to prove reasonable diligence in locating the work to avoid a statute of limitations bar; the limitations period turns on demand and refusal, while delay-related equities are handled through laches.


Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311 (1991)