O'Keeffe v. Snyder

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1979 · Property

416 A.2d 862 (N.J. 1980)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyreplevinstatute of limitationsdiscovery rulestolen artadverse possession of chattelsstolen paintingsN.J.S.A. 2A:14-1

Facts

O'Keeffe alleged that three of her paintings were stolen from An American Place in New York in 1946 and that she did not learn their whereabouts until 1975-1976, when she discovered them first in a New York gallery and then in Snyder's New Jersey gallery. Snyder had bought the paintings in 1975 from Ulrich Frank for $35,000, and Frank claimed that he and his father had possessed the paintings continuously for decades, including a period that allegedly predated the theft. O'Keeffe had not reported the paintings to police or publicly advertised their loss in 1946, though she discussed the loss with art-world associates and in 1972 reported the paintings to the Art Dealers Association of America registry. On cross-motions for summary judgment, Snyder conceded theft only for purposes of his own motion, while the record still contained factual disputes over whether the paintings were in fact stolen and how the Frank family acquired them.

Issue

When does a cause of action for replevin of allegedly stolen artwork accrue under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1? Relatedly, should New Jersey continue to treat adverse possession as the governing doctrine for chattels, and was summary judgment proper given the factual disputes over theft, title, and possession?

Rule

In New Jersey, the discovery rule applies to actions for replevin of stolen or lost chattels under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. The cause of action accrues when the owner first knew, or reasonably should have known through the exercise of due diligence, of the cause of action, including the identity of the possessor; the owner bears the burden of establishing facts justifying deferred accrual. The court overruled prior cases to the extent they applied adverse possession to chattels, though once the limitations period expires, title as well as the remedy vests in the possessor, and successive possessors in privity may tack periods of possession.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2012, Lena Ortiz discovered that a bronze sculpture had disappeared from her Santa Fe studio. She immediately reported the loss to local police, notified regional galleries and auction houses, and periodically checked a trade registry for missing art. In 2021, she learned that Noah Benton was displaying the sculpture in his Newark gallery, and she filed a replevin action in New Jersey in 2022.

Under New Jersey law as stated by the majority, when did Lena's cause of action most likely accrue?

Explanation. The majority adopted the discovery rule for replevin of stolen or lost chattels under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. Accrual occurs when the owner knew or reasonably should have known, through due diligence, of the cause of action, including the identity of the possessor. It is not automatically the date of theft, nor did the majority adopt a demand-and-refusal rule.