Autocephalous Church v. Goldberg & Feldman Arts, 917 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1990)

a.       Facts- A church was looted after an invasion. The church tried getting back the looted goods afterward. D had a certain artifact from the church.

b.      Issue-

c.       Did Cyprus do everything it could to recover the artifacts? Yes, they are the GOLD standard…just because you can point out ONE thing they didn’t do doesn’t mean the other party didn’t do the right thing

d.      What about Goldberg?

                                                              i.      Sucks because she lost everything, but she should have taken more precautions to make sure it wasn’t stolen

                                                            ii.      POINT: The Ct looks at the negligence of the owner…NOT the diligence of the possessor

                                                          iii.      Good faith for the purchaser is analogous to the “open and notorious” principle…if the purchase was in bad faith (or lack of good faith) then this means a fraud concealment…and thus not “open and notorious”…so the Statute of Limitation does NOT start to run until its open and notorious

e.       In this case, the Statute of Limitation started when the true owner knew of the theft

                                                              i.      Cyprus can also make the argument that, “Goldberg bought the item in bad faith, which amounts in fraudulent concealment”