🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Met, alleging that a Van Gogh art piece was seized by Nazi forces.

Case History

According to the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the piece, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. Just one year later, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany on the eve of World War II.

The legal action argues that the Met, which obtained the masterpiece in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was probably confiscated property. The heirs are now requesting the return of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since World War II, this stolen artwork has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, states the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern escaped from Munich to California in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government classified the artwork as German cultural property and prohibited the couple from bringing it with them. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a representative assigned by the authorities sold the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were placed in a restricted account, which the Nazis later confiscated.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or soon after, the artwork entered the United States and was bought by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the museum, which then sold it to wealthy Greek businessman 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 family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The legal action alleges that the defendants and its related entities have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the heirs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to hide the manner and time the BEG came into ownership of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Third Reich looted the Painting from the family, coerced the Sterns into disposing of it via a regime representative, and confiscated the money of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family initiated a similar complaint in CA in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in May 2025.

The Met's Position

The complaint states that the Met's purchase of the painting was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European art and a renowned specialist on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had almost certainly been seized by the Nazis.

The museum responded that it prioritizes its historical dedication to handle claims from the Nazi period.

A spokesperson commented: At no time during the museum's possession of the piece was there any evidence that it had earlier been possessed to the family – indeed, that data did not become accessible until several decades after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – in particular, it was recorded that the artwork was judged to be of lesser quality than other works of the same type in the collection. While the museum maintains its view that this artwork entered the collection and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any additional details that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer representing BEG commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The action to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are certain it will be once more.