After the Baker collection was nipped in 1967, Aetna paid him $83,000 for the loss, and in exchange got a contractual release and rights to the property. When 235 of the 237 stolen items were found in the 70's they were given to Aetna as the rightful owner. Baker sued. The court in 1975 said Baker doesn't have a contractual right to these items, but since (a) these are unique and irreplaceable, and (b) neither he nor Aetna had any clue that these would inflate so drastically in value, I am going, in equity, to let him have it all back, if he pays you the 86K back with interest. So he did, paying Aetna $143,000. Aetna got a release for ALL PROPERTY stolen in the December 10, 1967 incident. Baker auctioned the stuff off for $¾ million.

Fast forward to 2006. The Stephens family has possession of the one-of-a kind ice house Lincoln. FBI takes possession. Everybody goes to court.

Stephens family argued that they purchased it at a flea market or garage sale for fair value, as innocent purchasers. Facts don't look so good for them. Looks more like they stumbled upon stolen property, and nothing more.

Court told Baker estate and Aetna to battle there claims first, then we will have the winner take on the Stephens. Aetna says 1975 rationale now favors Aetna. The heirs don't give a crap about "unique and irreplaceable," they are into the money just as we are, they don't even collect stamps, and they have no right to a windfall now. Court says never mind all that. The 1975 judge ruling was not based on two missing stamps, it was that Baker should give you all of your money back with interest, and you have been made whole. And you were. The order did not reflect any deduction or calculation adjustment based upon the two items that were at that time still missing. They own the entire collection. Aetna says oh come on, we have a release and assignment of rights, AGAIN.

Court said: "It is true that, as Aetna contends, the last paragraph of the settlement agreement refers to the December 10, 1967, loss of Mr. Baker's collection without qualification or distinction between recovered and unrecovered items of the stolen collection. However, that paragraph cannot be read in isolation." "The settlement agreement by its terms did not preserve any interest for Aetna in the unrecovered stamps; it merely reflected the termination of the insured-insurer relationship between Mr. Baker and Aetna with regard to the recovered stamps."

Bullshit but there you have it.

Now, Baker Estate v. Stephens: Baker Estate says Stephenses have no greater right or title to the Ice House Cover than the thief who initially stole it, which is to say, they have no rights, and, besides, they voluntarily relinquished possessory rights by giving it to the FBI. Stephens say that's crap, we had to relinquish possession without waiving our rights, our possession is valid against any but a legal owner, and you, spoiled rotten Baker kids, can establish no legal right to it because the statute of limitations for a recovery action (replevin) ran a long time ago. Besides that, the property was abandoned before we got it.
Court says, no, statute doesn't start to run if they don't know where to find it. Stephens say ah yes but they would have, with reasonable diligence, have found it: An informant in the late 60's offered to disclose location for a mere $15,000.

All right, all right, said the court. You can go to trial against the Baker Estate and try to prove that they abandoned the property or did not exercise diligence to get it back. Trial to begin on July 18, 2008.

But – no trial took place. On August 11, 2008, the Stephens signed a stipulation and allowed a consent judgment stating that they had no ownership interest in the Ice House. Case dismissed. Everybody wins except the insurance company. (Note: the intervening subsequent merger and acquisition activity as Aetna was absorbed into Travelers was not the basis for them losing rights.)