Sounds like very bad news to me too.  My question is -- Do you want it?
If so, why not consider a loan with a clause that it becomes yours after
7 years, free and clear.  Then if the estate suffers financial difficulties
they take back the art, and you are out the insurance and  administration
costs, but you were willing to take the gamble.  Otherwise it looks like
a rotten deal to me.
Ann Stevenson
Collections Manager (On leave)
UBC Museum of Anthropology
[log in to unmask]


On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, CarolM5397 wrote:

> Our museum has been named as beneficiary in a will and was to receive an
> original piece of art stated to value a relatively large sum. Accompanying
> legal documented required (requested) a notarized signature etc. etc. Yet
> in the text of the documents the museum would have agreed , that in case
> of debt or obligation of the estate of the deceased that might come to
> light sometime in the next (7?) years, we agree to return not the art but
> the stated value of the art in money. We haven't signed. Is this common?
> Sounds like bad news to me. The executors of the estate have indicated
> some lack of experience in this regard of leaving art to museums. Anyone
> out there have any experience with these circumstances?
>
> Carol Morgan
> Director: Demuth Foundation
> Lancaster, PA
>
> E-mail: Carol [log in to unmask]
>