🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Met, alleging that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by the Third Reich.

Case History

As stated in the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern acquired the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their residence in Munich prior to World War II.

The suit contends that the institution, which acquired the painting in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the return of the canvas along with compensation.

Following WWII, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, states the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern escaped from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Nevertheless, they were unable to bring the painting, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Before they left, the regime declared the painting as property of the state and banned the family from bringing it with them. Following authorization from a Third Reich agent, a agent assigned by the regime disposed of the artwork on the couple's behalf. But, the money from the sale were deposited in a restricted account, which the Nazis later seized.

Post-War History

By 1948, or shortly after, the artwork entered NYC and was bought by a prominent figure, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise founded the BEG in the late 1970s, which operates a gallery in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently shown.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a living relative of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the defendants and its associated organizations have covered up the painting's ownership and location from the family.

To this day, the foundation continue to conceal the circumstances the foundation came into possession of the artwork; the family's possession of the artwork from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the Nazis stole the artwork from the family, pressured the Sterns into selling it via a regime representative, and took the funds of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a similar complaint in California in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action argues that the institution's buying of the painting was approved by a curator, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the artwork had probably been looted by the regime.

The Met said in a statement that it takes seriously its ongoing pledge to resolve issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the piece was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – indeed, that data did not become known until a long time after the painting left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – specifically, it was recorded that the artwork was deemed to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the collection. Even though the museum respectfully stands by its stance that this artwork entered the holdings and was sold legally and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met invites and will examine any further evidence that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer representing the foundation said: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The attempt to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the America upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, twice. We are convinced it will be a third time.