Campbell v. De La Torre

Background

Vance Campbell, as executor of the Estate of Wallace Campbell, sued Manuel Julio De La Torre, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Manuel Jesus De La Torre and Sylvia De La Torre. Campbell sought a declaration that the Campbell Estate owned Canaima II, a 1947 oil drawing by Wifredo Lam, and sought to clear the title to the drawing. The drawing had been purchased directly from Lam by Manuel and Sylvia De La Torre, who alleged that their collection was stolen when they fled Cuba in 1960.

De La Torre asserted counterclaims seeking a declaration that he was the true owner and alleging unjust enrichment based on Campbell’s continued possession of the drawing. The De La Torre family demanded the drawing’s return by June 30, 2021. Campbell did not return it. Campbell filed this action on February 20, 2025, and De La Torre filed his counterclaims on April 29, 2025.

Motions and legal standards

Campbell moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings on his claims. A judgment on the pleadings may be granted when the pleadings establish the claimant’s entitlement to relief and present no material factual dispute. Campbell also moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss De La Torre’s counterclaims for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. On both motions, the court accepted the factual allegations in De La Torre’s pleadings as true and considered the June 14, 2021 demand letter because it was integral to the counterclaims.

Statute of limitations

The court applied New York’s three-year statute of limitations for an action to recover personal property or damages for taking or detaining it. Under New York law, a claim against a good-faith possessor generally accrues when the true owner demands return and the possessor refuses. An express statement using the word “refused” is not required; failing to return the property by the demand deadline can show an intent to interfere with the claimant’s possessory rights.

The court held that De La Torre’s claim accrued no later than July 1, 2021. De La Torre alleged that he demanded return by June 30, 2021, and that Campbell did not return the drawing by that date. The court concluded that De La Torre could have brought a claim for conversion or replevin on July 1, 2021, but did not assert such a claim until April 29, 2025, more than three years later.

The court stated that it did not need to rely on a June 25, 2021 letter allegedly refusing the demand. The failure to return the drawing by the deadline was sufficient. The court also found that any dispute about how Wallace Campbell acquired the drawing, how it passed to the Campbell Estate, or whether Vance Campbell had authority to act for the estate would not affect when the limitations period began.

Effect on the claims

The court held that the limitations period barred any claim by De La Torre to recover the drawing, regardless of whether the claim was labeled conversion, replevin, unjust enrichment, or declaratory judgment. The court explained that the substance of the requested relief—not the label attached to the claim—determines the applicable limitations period. Because De La Torre’s counterclaims sought the drawing or damages based on its detention, they were time-barred.

The court concluded that Campbell was entitled to judgment removing the cloud on the Campbell Estate’s title caused by De La Torre’s claim. Judge Liman granted Campbell’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Campbell’s motion to dismiss De La Torre’s counterclaims. The clerk was directed to close the motion and the case.