🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was looted by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple purchased the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their residence in Munich, Germany on the eve of World War II.

The complaint argues that the museum, which obtained the painting in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was likely stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the return of the painting along with damages.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, claims the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, the Nazi government designated the painting as property of the state and banned the family from bringing it with them. Once approved from a regime representative, a trustee assigned by the regime disposed of the piece on the couple's behalf. However, the proceeds from the transaction were placed in a blocked account, which the regime later took.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or soon after, the painting arrived in the United States and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the museum, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a museum in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are listed as respondents. The legal action states that the family and its affiliates have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and location from the family.

Currently, the defendants continue to obscure how and when the BEG came into possession of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from several years; and the facts that the regime stole the artwork from the heirs, pressured the Sterns into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the money of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs filed a related lawsuit in CA in recently, but it was thrown out in 2024. An legal challenge was also denied in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action states that the museum's acquisition of the painting was approved by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been seized by the regime.

The Met issued a statement that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to handle claims from the Nazi period.

A spokesperson commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the painting was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the family – actually, that information did not become accessible until many years after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was documented that the work was considered to be of lower caliber than other pieces of the comparable nature in the inventory. While The Met respectfully stands by its view that this artwork entered the holdings and was sold properly and well within all rules and regulations, the Met welcomes and will consider any new information that is discovered.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for the foundation commented: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The action to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be a third time.