We have moved into the last argument made by the plaintiffs, the Herzog family, in their lawsuit to recover 40 artworks from the Republic of Hungary and some state-affiliated museums. The heirs recently survived the defendants' motion to dismiss, and we have been reviewing the court's decision.

The litigation came to our attention for a few reasons: It involves the recovery of Holocaust-era property, it involves a lot of different areas of law, and it involves a family's struggle to get their inheritance back.

In our last post, we were discussing the plaintiffs' argument that the defendants were holding pieces from the Herzog Collection as part of a bailment. As the bailor, the plaintiffs had granted the defendants, the bailees, use of their property but not title to it.

An "express" bailment is a contract, either written or oral, with the terms agreed on by the parties. In its simplest form, it's the teenager borrowing a parent's car. The teen may drive to the movies, he may not have any passengers, his cellphone will be off while he's behind the wheel, and he will come right home when the movie is over. The parties agree to the terms, the parent hands over the keys but not title to the car, and the teen benefits from the use of the car.

A bailment can also be "implied-in-fact." There is no written or oral agreement, but the circumstances add up to one. And, importantly, the parties don't actually need to agree.

That's the plaintiffs' argument here -- and we'll elaborate on it in our next post.

Source: DAVID L. de CSEPEL, et al. v. REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, et al., Memorandum, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 10-1261 (ESH), filed Sept. 1, 2011