5 ms·

When something like this is found, is the family just out of luck as far as the value of the item goes, or do they somehow get compensated? Obviously they didn'

When something like this is found, is the family just out of luck as far as the value of the item goes, or do they somehow get compensated? Obviously they didn't know it was stolen when they bought it from the rare document dealer. Is there insurance for cases like that?

pkaye 7y ago
They can sue the dealer that sold them the object. I'm sure they can get insurance too but possibly the insurer would do some research on the object before underwriting. Kind of like title insurance.
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  I bought title insurance last week because I had to. But I'm curious what it's about. Is it in case someone shows up and is like, "no I'm the actual owner of the house. The seller defrauded everyone, look at all this evidence."?
  - bardworx 7y ago
    Yes, that’s exactly what it’s for. A more realistic scenario is a family member sold a house but didn’t own the rights. Next thing you know, another family member shows up and tries to dispute the sale. That’s how I understand it.
  - pkaye 7y ago
    Yes the title insurer does their research for any discrepancies and then insures you and the lender against certain risks.
  - sparky_z 7y ago
    The other replies are correct, but there are also subtler problems that title insurance can cover. One example I remember reading about was an old surveying error that resulted in an inlaw unit encroaching 6 inches on a neighbor's property. If such a problem is discovered, the insurance company might negotiate with the neighbor to purchase a perpetual easement or, failing that, pay to have the inlaw unit either moved or altered to correct the problem.
slg 7y ago
Also how much time has to pass before the stolen nature becomes immaterial? I would imagine that a majority of artifacts in most history museums fit some definition of the word "stolen". Is this just different because it was stolen within the last century?
- JadeNB 7y ago
  I'm sure that a lot of suitably ancient theft is shrugged off—I guess even that suitably ancient theft eventually becomes synonymous with possession—but the example of the Elgin marbles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles) shows that it's not always so.
  - slg 7y ago
    A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. For example, the UK has also refused to return certain pieces of artwork that the Nazis stole from Holocaust victims. That theft occurred at roughly the same time this letter was stolen.
    - JadeNB 7y ago
      > A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I'll grant that it's getting into terminological quibbles, but I'd call the 18th century (or the early 19th, as for the Elgin marbles) probably about as ancient as a theft can be while still allowing us to have some reasonable idea of who the 'true' owners are. Farther back than that, I imagine one gets into the mists of increasingly inaccurate histories, not to mention of mutually conflicting but equally viable claims on who is the rightful owner and who the thief.
      - kmlx 7y ago
        i present you with an 18th century australian shield being claimed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-man-private-viewing-ancestral-shield-james-cook-australia-british-museum-a8896501.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-m... > An Aboriginal man demanding the return of an ancestral shield seized by James Cook in 1770 has become the first living member of his clan to hold it after being invited to a private viewing by the British Museum. > Mr Kelly said repatriation was important in light of “all the stuff that’s happened in the past” and it would be a “huge moment in time to have the British Museum and others actually return things to the Aboriginal people because it would be a great step towards the healing process.” > Mr Kelly’s claim to the artefacts has been backed by a motion passed in 2016 by New South Wales’ parliament, which acknowledged his clan as the shield’s rightful owners; Australia’s Senate followed suit two months later. I would love to read how they came to that conclusion.
virtualwhys 7y ago
There's a clawback provision in place in most major auction house contracts that states that the funds for any sold item (or the item itself) can, at any point in the future, be recouped from the buyer/seller if proven to have been stolen or fraudulent. Basically as the seller of such an item you'll be sued, so be sure proof of provenance is sound. In this case the letter was part of a government archive, so back to Massachusetts it will go...

pkaye 7y ago

They can sue the dealer that sold them the object. I'm sure they can get insurance too but possibly the insurer would do some research on the object before underwriting. Kind of like title insurance.

Waterluvian 7y ago
I bought title insurance last week because I had to. But I'm curious what it's about. Is it in case someone shows up and is like, "no I'm the actual owner of the house. The seller defrauded everyone, look at all this evidence."?
- bardworx 7y ago
  Yes, that’s exactly what it’s for. A more realistic scenario is a family member sold a house but didn’t own the rights. Next thing you know, another family member shows up and tries to dispute the sale. That’s how I understand it.
- pkaye 7y ago
  Yes the title insurer does their research for any discrepancies and then insures you and the lender against certain risks.
- sparky_z 7y ago
  The other replies are correct, but there are also subtler problems that title insurance can cover. One example I remember reading about was an old surveying error that resulted in an inlaw unit encroaching 6 inches on a neighbor's property. If such a problem is discovered, the insurance company might negotiate with the neighbor to purchase a perpetual easement or, failing that, pay to have the inlaw unit either moved or altered to correct the problem.

slg 7y ago

Also how much time has to pass before the stolen nature becomes immaterial? I would imagine that a majority of artifacts in most history museums fit some definition of the word "stolen". Is this just different because it was stolen within the last century?

JadeNB 7y ago
I'm sure that a lot of suitably ancient theft is shrugged off—I guess even that suitably ancient theft eventually becomes synonymous with possession—but the example of the Elgin marbles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles) shows that it's not always so.
- slg 7y ago
  A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. For example, the UK has also refused to return certain pieces of artwork that the Nazis stole from Holocaust victims. That theft occurred at roughly the same time this letter was stolen.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I'll grant that it's getting into terminological quibbles, but I'd call the 18th century (or the early 19th, as for the Elgin marbles) probably about as ancient as a theft can be while still allowing us to have some reasonable idea of who the 'true' owners are. Farther back than that, I imagine one gets into the mists of increasingly inaccurate histories, not to mention of mutually conflicting but equally viable claims on who is the rightful owner and who the thief.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      i present you with an 18th century australian shield being claimed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-man-private-viewing-ancestral-shield-james-cook-australia-british-museum-a8896501.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-m... > An Aboriginal man demanding the return of an ancestral shield seized by James Cook in 1770 has become the first living member of his clan to hold it after being invited to a private viewing by the British Museum. > Mr Kelly said repatriation was important in light of “all the stuff that’s happened in the past” and it would be a “huge moment in time to have the British Museum and others actually return things to the Aboriginal people because it would be a great step towards the healing process.” > Mr Kelly’s claim to the artefacts has been backed by a motion passed in 2016 by New South Wales’ parliament, which acknowledged his clan as the shield’s rightful owners; Australia’s Senate followed suit two months later. I would love to read how they came to that conclusion.

virtualwhys 7y ago

There's a clawback provision in place in most major auction house contracts that states that the funds for any sold item (or the item itself) can, at any point in the future, be recouped from the buyer/seller if proven to have been stolen or fraudulent. Basically as the seller of such an item you'll be sued, so be sure proof of provenance is sound. In this case the letter was part of a government archive, so back to Massachusetts it will go...