🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Met, claiming that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by Nazi forces.

Origins of the Dispute

According to the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich just before the Second World War.

The legal action argues that the Met, which acquired the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for $125,000, must have realized it was likely stolen property. The descendants are now seeking the return of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family fled from Munich to America in the late 1930s with their offspring due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, Nazi authorities designated the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and banned the couple from exporting it. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative assigned by the Nazis auctioned the painting on the couple's behalf. Yet, the funds from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the regime later seized.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or shortly after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was purchased by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the Met, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair founded the Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a institution in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a surviving nephew of Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action claims that the family and its associated organizations have covered up the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into ownership of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the Painting from several years; and the reality that the regime confiscated the artwork from the Stern family, coerced the couple into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the funds of the sale.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs initiated a related lawsuit in the state of California in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in recently.

Museum's Response

The complaint states that the museum's acquisition of the piece was sanctioned by a curator, the institution's specialist of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been seized by the regime.

The Met said in a statement that it is committed to its historical dedication to handle issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the painting was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the family – in fact, that data did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – specifically, it was documented that the work was deemed to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the similar kind in the holdings. Even though The Met respectfully stands by its position that this piece entered the collection and was deaccessioned legally and well within all guidelines and policies, the museum is open to and will review any further evidence that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel representing BEG stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The attempt to sue and smear the organization and the defendants in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was already thrown out, twice. We are confident it will be once more.