Court Opinion

ID: 9701541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:23:58.704678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:17.392835
License: Public Domain

HANDLER, J.,
dissenting.
The Court today rules that if a work of art has been stolen from an artist, the artist’s right to recover his or her work from a subsequent possessor would be barred by the statute of limitations if the action were not brought within six years after the original theft. This can happen even though the artist may have been totally innocent and wholly ignorant of the identity of the thief or of any intervening receivers or possessors of the stolen art. The Court would grudgingly grant some measure of *508relief from this horrendous result and allow the artist to bring suit provided he or she can sustain the burden of proving “due diligence” in earlier attempting to retrieve the stolen artwork. No similar duty of diligence or vigilance, however, is placed upon the subsequent receiver or possessor, who, innocently or not, has actually trafficked in the stolen art. Despite ritualistic disavowals, the Court’s holding does little to discourage art thievery. Rather, by making it relatively more easy for the receiver or possessor of an artwork with a “checkered background” to gain security and title than for the artist or true owner to reacquire it, it seems as though the Court surely will stimulate and legitimatize art thievery.
I believe that there is a much sounder approach in this sort of case than one that requires the parties to become enmeshed in duplicate or cumulative hearings that focus on the essentially collateral issues of the statute of limitations and its possible tolling by an extended application of the discovery doctrine. The better approach, I would suggest, is one that enables the parties to get to the merits of the controversy. It would recognize an artist’s or owner’s right to assert a claim against a newly-revealed receiver or possessor of stolen art as well- as the correlative right of such a possessor to assert all equitable and legal defenses. This would enable the parties to concentrate directly upon entitlement to the artwork rather than entitlement to bring a lawsuit. By dealing with the merits of the claims instead of the right to sue, such an approach would be more conducive to reconciling the demands for individual justice with societal needs to discourage art thievery. In addition, such a rule would comport more closely with traditional common law values emphasizing the paramountcy of the rights of a true owner of chattels as against others whose possession is derived from theft. Simultaneously, it would acknowledge that the claims of the true owner as against subsequent converters may in appropriate circumstances be counterbalanced by equitable considerations.
I therefore dissent.
*509I
By virtue of cross-motions for summary judgment, the posture of the case as it comes to us is that the paintings were stolen from their true owner, plaintiff O’Keeffe, and that defendant Snyder acted in good faith in purchasing the paintings. Hence, we are presented for purposes of this appeal with the classic confrontation between a true owner of property and a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value, each of whom is relatively innocent and each of whom has been victimized by a thief. The true owner here is the artist who created the paintings, and she seeks to recover them through an action for replevin.
An action brought for replevin is a proper means for an owner to regain possession of chattels lost through conversion. Baron v. Peoples National Bank of Secaucus, 9 N.J. 249, 255-256 (1952); D. Dobbs, The Law of Remedies § 5.13 at 399 et seq. (1973); 20 N.J. Practice (Ackerson & Fulop, Skills and Methods) § 1711 at 490 (2 ed. 1973); 66 Am.Jur.2d, Replevin, § 39 at 860 (1973); see also Plummer v. Kingsley, 190 Or. 378, 384-385, 226 P.2d 297, 300-301 (Sup.Ct.1951); J. Darlington, The Law of Personal Property 4 (1891). The statute of limitations applicable to replevin actions is six years. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. A fundamental miscalculation by the majority, however, is its assumption that this six-year limitations statute is applicable to O’Keeffe’s claims. The statute of limitations defense was raised by defendant Snyder, but it is not available here because Snyder’s acts of conversion—his purchase of the paintings from third-party defendant Frank and his refusal to return them to plaintiff O’Keeffe upon demand—constituted independent tortious acts each of which occurred well within six years of the commencement of plaintiff’s lawsuit. Hence, there is no reason not to permit O’Keeffe’s lawsuit and allow the parties to proceed to the heart of the controversy.1
*510In averting a direct confrontation with the merits of the dispute, the majority ignores some rather fundamental law. It rejects the doctrine that the acquisition of a stolen chattel, or a refusal to return it upon demand, itself constitutes a tortious conversion as against the true owner. Ante at 489-490. It has not come to this position easily. The majority opinion recognizes the New York rule which clearly and dispositively treats a subsequent possessor’s refusal to return goods upon a demand from the owner as an act of conversion that triggers the running of the statute of limitations applicable to replevin actions. Ante at 502-504. See Menzel v. List, 49 Misc.2d 300, 304-305, 267 N.Y.S.2d 804, 809 (Sup.Ct.1966), aff’d as modified 28 A.D.2d 516, 279 N.Y.S.2d 608 (App.Div.1967), rev’d in part on other grounds, 24 N.Y.2A 91, 246 N.E.2d 742, 298 N.Y.S. 2d 979 (Ct.App.1969). But the Court, relying upon Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 140-141 (1973), declines to follow the New York law on the theory that the New York law is a statute of limitations and that the New Jersey statute of limitations, rather than that of New York, should be applied. The issue, however, is not whether the New Jersey statute of limitations should be followed rather than that of New York. The New York rule of subsequent conversions, rejected by the majority, is not a “statute of limitations,” but rather is a substantive principle of the law of torts. The majority simply sidesteps the question of which state’s tort law ought to be applied to this case.
*511Nevertheless, in the context of this case, that misstep should not be significant since it does not appear that New York law with respect to actionable conversion is truly at variance with the law of this jurisdiction. See, e. g., Joseph v. Lesnevich, 56 N.J.Super. 340, 346 (App.Div.1959). It is clearly the predominant view that subsequent transfers of a stolen chattel constitute separate acts of conversion. R. Bowers, The Law of Conversion § 40 at 31 (1917); R. Brown, The Law of Personal Property § 6.6 at 58 (3 ed. 1975); F. V. Harper and F. James, Jr., The Law of Torts § 2.35 at 188-189 (1956); W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 15 at 84 (4 ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 229, Comments e and g (1965); Annot., “When Statute of Limitations Begins to Run against Action for Conversion of Property by Theft,” 79 A.L.RM 847, § 4 at 855 (1975). Indeed, in authority used today in the majority opinion (ante at 492-493), it does not appear to be questioned even by institutions clothed with probity—e. g., art museums—that an acquisition of stolen art constitutes a separate conversionary act which starts the statute of limitations running either initially or “anew.” Ward, “Adverse Possession of Loaned and Stolen Objects: Is Possession Still 9/10ths of the Law?,” in Legal Problems of Museum Administration 83, 96-97 (ALI-ABA 1980) (as to acquisition of stolen art, “the principle would be that the statute of limitations would start to run on the date of our [, i. e., the museum’s,] innocent acquisition”).
The Court seems to harbor the view that a subsequent transfer of stolen property does not, in effect, constitute a separate conversionary act. As a tortious act, a subsequent conversion known to the injured owner of the goods would constitute the accrual of a cause of action and would trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, according to the Court, a second or subsequent act of conversion does not constitute a separate cause of action because it does not start the “statute of limitations running anew,” this position being allegedly consistent with “[t]he majority and better view [which] permit[s] tacking.” Ante at 503. The majority’s reliance here on Joseph v. Lesnevich, supra, for this proposition is unconvincing. *512While the court in that case did allow a “tacking” of wrongful possession, it did so only with regard to negotiable instruments, a long-established exception to the general rule. 56 N.J.Super. at 346, 357. See Shaw v. R. R. Co., 101 U.S. 557, 564, 25 L.Ed. 892, 894 (1880); Bowers, supra, § 41 at 31-32; Darlington, supra at 357; Dobbs, supra, § 4.7 at 286-288; Prosser, supra, § 15 at 84-85.
The Court further observes in this case that a cause of action for conversion accrued with the original theft of the paintings in 1946; it assumes that the statute of limitations commenced to run from the date of that theft, at least absent any tolling of the limitations period by the application of the discovery rule. The reasoning then jumps. According to the Court, unless there were “tacking,” i. e., a refusal to allow or require the statute of limitations to run “anew” from the occurrence of the second and separate act of conversion, we would in effect be allowing a stale claim. Since “stale claims” are to be discouraged through statutes of limitations, “tacking” must be invoked to bar the old claim. Ante at 503. In this elliptical fashion, the majority effectively obliterates the tortious character of a subsequent conversion. Ante at 504.
There are several weaknesses in the Court’s position. The most fundamental is the contention that O’Keeffe’s claim against Snyder is “stale.” Another is the assumption that the policies of repose and the like can be fulfilled in this case only by eliminating a legitimate cause of action, namely, that based on a subsequent conversion. Still another is the majority’s view, derived from an affidavit, that stability of possession and title is as important in the world of art as it is in the field of commercial sales and, indeed, is so important that it requires a rule that will, more often than not, settle title to stolen art in the hands of an ultimate possessor whether he or she be truly innocent, simply lucky, just plain cunning, or actually larcenous. Ante at 503. No persuasive reasons are advanced for the view that this notion of “stability,” which would serve in many cases actually to legitimatize art theft, is more important than is the return of stolen unique, artistic creations to their creator or true owner when this is justified by equitable considerations.
*513II
The holding of the majority, which involves a convoluted rendition of the law of statutes of limitations and adverse possession, in my respectful opinion, not only espouses an erroneous perception of the proper public policy to be achieved, but is actually unneeded even to secure the values endorsed by the Court. There is no reason why the concerns of the majority cannot be reasonably and fully accommodated by traditional doctrines that would, in a case such as this, lead us to a thorough consideration and careful balancing of all the equities as they bear directly upon the merits of the controversy.
It is the general rule that “a bona fide purchaser of personal property taken tortiously or wrongfully, as by trespass or theft, does not acquire a title good against the true owner.” Kutner Buick, Inc. v. Strelecki, 111 N.J.Super. 89, 97 (Ch.Div.1970) (purchaser of stolen motor vehicle); accord, Joseph v. Lesnevich, supra, 56 N.J.Super. at 346; see Ashton v. Allen, 70 N.J.L. 117, 119 (Sup.Ct.1903); Bowers, supra, § 40 at 30-31; Darlington, supra at 359. This principle is recognized by the majority, ante at 488-489 and was embraced both by the Appellate Division majority, O’Keeffe v. Snyder, 170 N.J.Super. 75, 82 (App.Div. 1979), and in the dissent of Judge Fritz, id. at 93.
This rule is not a recent development. As noted by Judge Fritz in his dissenting opinion below, id. at 94, it has a long and distinguished history and was recognized by Lord Blackstone as a fundamental principle of English law with respect to chattels or personal property. 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *449; 3 Blackstone, supra at *145. This basic rule as to nonpassage of title to stolen personalty, viz, “[i]f a person steal [sic ] goods and sell [sic] them, the title is not transferred, but remains in the original owner, and he may reclaim them,” was adopted in this country. J. Elliott, New Jersey Law of Sales 369 n.14 (1909); see Bowers, supra, § 40 at 31. Early cases in the United States followed this rule that good title could not be acquired from a thief, even by a bona fide purchaser. E. g., Shaw v. R. R. Co., supra, 101 U.S. at 564-565, 25 L.Ed. at 894; Heckle v. Lurvey, 101 Mass. 344, 345 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1869) (“[t]he principle is well *514settled, that, when a thief sells chattels, even to an honest purchaser, no title passes”); Dame v. Baldwin, 8 Mass. 518, 521 (1812); Williams v. Merle, 11 Wend. 80, 81-82 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1831); Mowrey v. Walsh, 8 Cowen 238, 241 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1826).
This legal axiom was not altered by the codification and adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter Code or U.C.C.), which has been described as “derivpng] from the common law” and as “assumpng] the continuing existence of a large body of pre-Code and non-Code law on which it rests for support, which it displaces to the least possible extent, and without which it could not survive.” Gilmore, “Article 9: What it Does for the Past,” 26 La.L.Rev. 285, 285-286 (1966). See J. White & R. Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 2 at 6 (1972). On the topic of acquisition of title to chattels from a wrongdoer, the Code states that “[a] purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer . . . .” N.J.S.A. 12A:2-403(1) (U.C.C. § 2-403(1)). Therefore, if the wrongdoer has no title, he or she cannot convey title; the purchaser acquires only that title reposing in the transferor. As noted in the New Jersey Study Comments to the U.C.C. as enacted, “[n]othing in this portion of the subsection [N.J.S.A. 12A:2-403(1)] would change the law that a purchaser from a thief gains no interest in the goods.” Study Comment 2 to N.J.S.A. 12A:2-403(1). See Lieber v. Mohawk Arms, Inc., 64 Misc.2d 206, 208, 314 N.Y.S2d 510, 512 (Sup.Ct.1970) (plaintiff entitled under U.C.C. to recover possession from bona fide purchaser certain of Adolf Hitler’s personal effects to which plaintiff had title and which had been stolen from plaintiff); 67 Am.Jur.2d, Sales, § 257 at 392 (1973).
It follows from this well-established principle that, generally, as between the true owner who has lost personal property through theft and a subsequent good faith purchaser for value, the former is entitled to the goods over the latter. Title remains in the true owner rather than flowing to the bona fide purchaser when ‘“the wrongdoer sells the chattel to [such] innocent purchaser . . because the wrongdoer had [no title] to give.’ ” Kutner Buick, Inc. v. Strelecki, supra, 111 *515N.J.Super. at 97 (quoting from National Retailers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gambino, 1 N.J.Super. 627, 629 (Law Div.1948)). Accord, Joseph v. Lesnevich, supra, 56 N.J.Super. at 346; see, e. g., Barry Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 302 A.2d 61, 63 (D.C.1973) (“The law is well settled that a possessor of stolen goods can never convey good title.”) (sale of stolen automobile); Jordan v. Kancel, 188 Kan. 292, 294, 361 P.2d 894, 896 (Sup.Ct.1961) (replevin action to recover television sets sold without title or authority by rental agent; “[i]t is a general rule with regard to personal property that title, like a stream, cannot rise higher than its source” (citation omitted)); Linwood Harvestore, Inc. v. Cannon, 427 Pa. 434, 437, 235 A.2d 377, 380 (Sup.Ct.1967) (good faith purchase of farm equipment from converter; “[t]he general rule for chattels is that a bona fide purchaser from a thief gets nothing”); Prosser, supra § 15 at 87; Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 229, Comment e at 448.
These basic tenets are fully applicable to creative works of art and govern ownership claims in the case of the theft or wrongful appropriation of artistic creations such as those involved in this case. E. g., Porter v. Wertz, 68 A.D.2d 141, 149, 416 N.Y.S. 2d 254, 259 (App.Div.1979) (true owners of a painting by Maurice Utrillo, entitled Chateau de Lion-sur-Mer, could recover either the painting or damages as against defendant gallery which purchased the painting from an individual who had acquired it wrongfully from another person who was not authorized by the owner to sell it); cf. Lieber v. Mohawk Arms, Inc., supra, 64 Misc.2d at 208, 314 N.Y.S.2A at 512 (owner of personal effects of Adolf Hitler entitled to recover these unique items stolen from him by transferor of defendant bona fide purchaser).
Consequently, if we were to view this record as presenting only the undisputed fact that the paintings were stolen and could thus not be validly transferred thereafter to Snyder as a bona fide purchaser, plaintiff O’Keeffe would clearly be entitled to prevail. And, in that posture, I would subscribe to the result urged in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sullivan, ante at 506-507, namely, a reversal and entry of judgment in favor of *516plaintiff. Under all of the circumstances, however, I do not believe that such a disposition would be appropriate and would instead counsel a remand, albeit with a focus and under guidelines very different from those expressed in the majority opinion.2
Ill
“As a general rule, a defendant in a replevin action may interpose any defense which questions the plaintiff’s title or right to possession, or upholds his own taking or unlawful detention.” 66 Am.Jur.2A, Replevin, § 47 at 864 (1973) (footnotes omitted). See 20 N.J. Practicesupra, § 1739 at 509-510. While the fundamental principle is that a wrongdoer cannot, as against the true owner, convey good title even to a bona fide purchaser, that precept is not absolute. Some exceptions to this common law rule are derived from judicial rulings, others, from statutes. Dobbs, supra, § 4.7 at 282, 286; N.J.S.A. 12A:2-403(2) (U.C.C. § 2-403(2)) (U.C.C. codifies the common law notion of voidable or equitable title where goods have been “entrusted” by the owner “to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind”).
Aside from specialized defenses peculiar to sales transactions, there are also general equitable defenses—such as laches, unclean hands, estoppel or mistake—cognizable in equity actions or in other actions in which such defenses may be raised. Dobbs, supra, § 2.4 at 45 et seq. Notwithstanding in this case a failure to denominate each and every equitable defense wííich might be *517available to him, defendant Snyder has adequately invoked the defenses which would be germane in addressing plaintiff’s claim for the return of the paintings. He has asserted his own ownership of the paintings, implying thereby that, under all of the circumstances surrounding the original disappearance of the paintings, their subsequent possession by others, and his eventual purchase for value, his own entitlement to possession of them exceeds that of O’Keeffe. He has also alleged laches as against plaintiff, undoubtedly intending to establish that she delayed unduly in bringing an action to recover her paintings against those whom she knew or ought to have known were in possession thereof and that, as a result, he ultimately stands to suffer a loss.
Our courts have taken an expansive and flexible approach in the application of equitable defenses. See, e. g., Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers & Cosmetologists’ Int’l Union v. Pollino, 22 N.J. 389, 401 (1956); see also Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U.S. 383, 387-388, 64 S.Ct. 622, 625, 88 L.Ed. 814, 819 (1944). For example, in Untermann v. Untermann, 43 N.J.Super. 106, 109 (App.Div.1956), certif. den. 23 N.J. 363 (1957), while the court stated that the doctrine of unclean hands may bar a cause of action for separate maintenance, it also observed that this defense was an aspect or application of the broader equitable principle that “he who seeks equity must do equity”; hence, the defendant in such an action could under certain circumstances be estopped to raise the defense. The Untermann court further noted that the “doctrines of unclean hands and estoppel . are somewhat akin. . . . They are flexible in their application, turning largely on the circumstances involved in the . . . ‘total situation.’ . . . They may turn, too, upon the relative innocence or culpability of the plaintiff and defendant, for the law may aid the one who is comparatively the more innocent.” 43 N.J.Super. at 109 (citations omitted). We recently recognized this principle in Kazin v. Kazin, 81 N.J. 85, 94 (1979). Cf. Union Beach Bd. of Educ. v. New Jersey Educ. Ass’n, 96 N.J.Super. 371, 386-389 (Ch.Div.1967) (doctrine of unclean hands, was not available to defendants whose conduct *518was in violation of the Constitution and where the imposition of the doctrine would be contrary to public policy), aff’d 53 N.J. 29, 43 (1968) (Weintraub, C. J.) (“the doctrine will not be invoked when to do so will injure the public”).
Similarly, equitable estoppel has been applied flexibly “as a general principle, used as a means of preventing [one] from taking an inequitable advantage of a predicament in which his own conduct had placed his adversary.” Prosser, supra, § 105 at 691; see Kazin v. Kazin, supra, 81 N.J. at 94. Sometimes referred to as estoppel in pais, this doctrine “has been defined as ‘an impediment or bar, by which a man is precluded from alleging, or denying, a fact, in consequence of his own previous act, allegation or denial to the contrary.’ ” Prosser, supra, § 105 at 691 (footnote omitted).
These estoppel-based equitable defenses have been applied in actions involving conflicting ownership claims to chattels. E. g., Nelson v. Wolf, 4 N.J. 76, 79-80 (1950) (an “owner may be estopped from setting up his own title and the lack of title in the vendor as against a bona fide purchaser for value where the owner has clothed the vendor with possession and other indicia of title”); see James Talcott, Inc. v. Associates Discount Corp., 302 .F.2d 443, 447 (8 Cir. 1962) (Blackmun, J.) (under Arkansas law estoppel is defense to action to recover for wrongful resale of goods initially transferred to vendor by conditional sale); Zendman v. Harry Winston, Inc., 305 N.Y. 180, 184-188, 111 N.E.2d 871, 873-875 (Ct.App.1953) (under New Jersey law, estoppel defense invocable by purchaser where owner vested vendor with apparent authority to dispose of or sell the particular chattel); Hertz Corp. v. Hardy, 197 Pa.Super. 466, 471—476, 178 A.2d 833, 836-838 (Super.Ct.1962) (estoppel is an affirmative defense to an action for replevin of rented automobile which has been wrongfully sold to defendants; here, however, defendant bona fide purchaser had not relied on anything that plaintiff did and thus the equitable estoppel defense must fail).
A thorough balancing of the equities has been followed specifically to adjudicate the competing claims for misappropriated works of art. In Porter v. Wertz, supra, plaintiffs had loaned a *519Utrillo painting to a potential purchaser thereof pending a decision as to whether or not to purchase it; that individual, however, proceeded to sell the painting to a delicatessen employee who in turn sold it to a gallery which then resold it to a buyer who took the painting to Venezuela. 68 A.D.2d at 142-145, 416 N.Y.S.2d at 255-256. The court considered all of defendant’s affirmative statutory and equitable defenses as well as its factual assertions of ownership based upon good faith. It ruled that defendant art gallery was not entitled to statutory estoppel under U.C.C. § 2-403(2), finding, first, that the delicatessen employee, the gallery’s vendor, was not an art dealer, i. e., was not “a person in the business of selling goods of that kind” (U.C.C. § 1-201(9)); and, second, that the gallery was not “a person [acting] ... in good faith” (U.C.C. § 1-201(9)) in the purchase of the Utrillo since it had not exercised the conjunctive statutory requirements of “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade,” U.C.C. § 2-103(l)(b), viz, the gallery’s indifference as to the “provenance” 3 of the painting. 68 A.D.2d at 145-146, 416 N.Y.S.2d at 257.
The Porter court also rejected the gallery’s equitable estoppel defense, observing “that although one may not be a buyer in the ordinary course of business as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code, he may be a good-faith purchaser for value and enjoy the protection of precode [s/c] estoppel.” Id. at 147, 416 N.Y.S. 2d at 258 (citation omitted). Nevertheless, the court concluded that plaintiffs had vested in the bailee (who sold to the delicatessen employee) nothing more than possession, which “without more is insufficient to create an estoppel.” Id. at 148, 416 N.Y.S.2d at 259 (citation omitted).
Finally, in assessing defendant’s ownership claims in that case, the Porter court concluded that the gallery did not qualify as a “good faith purchaser,” since it had not investigated the prove*520nance of the Utrillo painting. Id. at 149, 416 N.Y.S.2d at 259. The language of the court is instructive in this regard:
The . . claim that the failure to look into Wertz’s authority to sell the painting was consistent with the practice of the trade does not excuse such conduct. This claim merely confirms the observation of the trial court that “in an industry whose transactions cry out for verification of . . title . it is deemed poor practice to probe . . .Indeed, commercial indifference to ownership or the right to sell facilitates traffic in stolen works of art. Commercial indifference diminishes the integrity and increases the culpability of the apathetic merchant. In such posture, [the gallery] cannot be heard to complain. [Ibid.]
Equitable considerations have special pertinency in the instant proceedings. They appropriately require the fullest exposure of all facets of the controversy: the uniqueness of the chattels— paintings created by a renowned artist whose artworks have in general grown greatly in value; the theft or mysterious disappearance of these paintings several decades ago; the subsequent possession and enjoyment of the paintings by the Frank family; Frank’s subsequent attempts to sell the paintings, and their eventual acquisition by Snyder; the experience and status of Snyder in the art world, and whether he sufficiently investigated the provenance of the O’Keeffe paintings and acted with commensurate due care and reasonable prudence when he purchased them.4 The difficulties caused by the lengthy interim between the original disappearance of the paintings and their ultimate surfacing in Snyder’s gallery also has a definite bearing upon the equities in this case.5 These considerations, I believe, *521should be given direct application as constituent elements of the primary claims and the affirmative defenses of the parties rather than be given at most, as required by the majority opinion, oblique application as an aspect of the discovery rule relevant only as to whether O’Keeffe is entitled to assert a claim for the stolen paintings.
IV
I am mindful that the majority is concerned with the importance of the policy of repose and the discouragement of stale claims. At times, however, these policies must yield to other equally important policies. Compare, for example, Velmohos v. Maren Engineering Corp., 83 N.J. 282, 293 (1980), with Galligan v. Westfield Centre Service, Inc., 82 N.J. 188, 192-193 (1980). The majority has in this case gone well beyond a simple and understandable desire for quietude in litigation. It has actually placed the entire burden of proof as to the absence of comparative fault upon the original owner-artist, albeit in the sheep’s clothing of the discovery rule. Ante at 492-494, 499-500. I see no justification for removing that burden from the defendant, who may assert equities in his favor to establish his entitlement to the artwork. Ward, supra at 96. I respectfully repeat that the Court’s anxiety in this regard can be fully and properly accommodated in this case without first fictionalizing the tortious character of Snyder’s conversion and then applying as the only pertinent statute of limitations that which was triggered as of the date of the original theft, subject to an artificial and novel extension of the discovery rule, all of which does not really allow the parties to get to the heart of the matter.
All of the factors which trouble the majority, I suggest, can and should be addressed in the context of a remand directing *522the trial court to consider the defendant’s affirmative defenses, to recognize that defendant bears the burden of proof with respect to those defenses, and, ultimately, to weigh the respective interests of the parties by balancing the equities in order to determine who should bear the loss of the paintings.
For these reasons, I dissent.
For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER and POLLOCK —5.
For affirmance—Justices SULLIVAN and HANDLER—2.

it is understandable that both lower courts in addressing the merits of the controversy dealt with the defenses of the statute of limitations and adverse possession since those courts were bound by Redmond v. New Jersey Histori*510cal Society, 132 N.J.Eq. 464 (E. & A. 1942), and at least constrained by Joseph v. Lesnevich, 56 N.J.Super. 340 (App.Div.1959). This Court, however, is not required to follow either decision; it is, therefore, less explicable as to why the Court has permitted itself to become entangled in these abstruse doctrines as applied to stolen or lost works of art. At any rate, I do not believe that Lesnevich is a persuasive decision as to the necessity for “tacking” in the application of the statute of limitations to chattels. Post at 511. Also I agree with the dissenting view below of Judge Fritz, 170 N.J.Super. at 93, 95 that the doctrine of adverse possession should not be applied to personalty and, to that extent, I join the Court in overruling Redmond, which had found the doctrine to be applicable to conflicting ownership claims to a painting (132 N.J.Eq. at 473). Ante at 498-499.

I am constrained to agree with the Court that the cross-motions for summary judgment have not satisfactorily eliminated all disputes as to material facts. It seems manifest that the parties brought their respective motions in order to obtain dispositive rulings as to the defenses of the statute of limitations and the doctrine of adverse possession. If defendants were entitled to prevail under either of these defenses, this would have terminated the litigation (the result actually reached by the trial court). Since, in my view, these defenses are not available, rulings in favor of plaintiff would have the effect only of a partial summary judgment under R. 4:46-2 because other issues remain unresolved in the case. Such a result would require a remand to decide such remaining issues. See Rotwein v. General Accident Group, 103 N.J.Super. 406, 424-425 (Law Div.1968).

The “history of ownership or the right to possess or sell an object [sic] d’art.” 68 AD.2d at 146, 416 N.Y.S.2d at 257.

Authority relied on here by the majority recognizes the responsibilities of experienced and knowledgeable persons in the art world, viz: “If the object is a work of a living artist [,] it may be that no one can be an innocent purchaser from a seller who lacks a provenance without at least calling the artist.” Ward, “Adverse Possession of Loaned and Stolen Objects: Is Possession Still %oths of the Law?,” in Legal Problems of Museum Administration 83, 96 (ALI-ABA 1980). Moreover, “[a]s experts [,] the court will expect [museums] to be more familiar with how to go about this [(checking the “usual sources" to see if the work of art is stolen)] than the average innocent purchaser.” Ibid.

There is no compelling reason why courts or parties should suffer the “Ames anomaly” referred to by the majority in support of its thesis. Ames, “The Disseisin of Chattels,” 3 Harv.L.Rev. 313, 323 (1890). Ante at 504. To *521the extent that it appears that O’Keeffe’s claims against any person in possession prior to Snyder would have been barred under the statute of limitations, this factor would constitute a potent, if not dispositive, equity in favor of Snyder.