Hi and Thanks for the remarks, Amanda and
Jerry.
Things can get very complicated, if this is
a case of multiple heirs - after 34 years, some of the heirs may
have been deceased.
This is a legal matter and such matters are
normally treated by the director of administration who should be
trained to solve such problems..
I think it is definitely not the
job of a museum officer (curator or so) to assist a claimant (I
would go so far to call it problematical in terms of labor
legislation. Good relations to sponsors and loaners always have limits) -
especially not if things develop to become time-consuming. This
is the job of the claimant and her/his lawyer.
If the claimant is able to present a probate
as the one and only heir, let your
lawyer check the probate and tell
you what to do. If the claimant is unable to do so, you can turn
to business as usual. If there were several heirs, they probably
all must meet an unanimous agreement on the disposition of the
object.
I am writing from a different legal framework with some legal experiences in Canada, but I think both legal systems would lead to the same general advices: The easiest way to rob a museum is to present false claims. Be careful.
Christian
[log in to unmask]"> Laws for inheritance and abandoned property vary by state. Minnesota has a specific abandoned property law for museums that deals with old loans. Check your state legislature. In general, yes, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Look at probate and see where the balance of the estate went, but if there are multiple heirs, it is up to them to decide the disposition of the object.
~AmandaI agree there is a balance between due diligence and trying to assist a legitimate return. Here are some additional questions I would ask:
1. How accurately can the claimant describe the object?2. Can the Museum independently verify the year of death.3. 34 years seems a long time to wait after death to ask for the loan back! Can the claimant be diplomatically asked to comment on this: this may actually assist their case e.g. if they have only recently come across paperwork that supports proof of title.4. Does the Museum have any documentation on the provenance of the object? If so, worth asking the claimant what he/she has and then “comparing notes”.
I live in the U.K. and am not familiar with U.S. federal or state law on all this, so my thoughts above are on a “common sense” basis!
Good luck,
Jerry
Sent from my iPhoneI think if someone claims a return of loans, it up to the claimant to do the job to prove the legality of claims. It is up to a lawyer then to check the papers.
Verlag Dr. Christian Müller-Straten
Crossmedia-Spezialverlag für die Bewahrung von Kultur und Natur
Redaktion: Dr. Adelheid Straten ([log in to unmask])
Herausgeber: Dr. Christian Mueller-Straten
Kunzweg 23, 81243 München, Germany
http://www.museum-aktuell.de T. 0049-(0)89-839 690 43, Fax -44, [log in to unmask]
Üblicherweise erreichbar: 7-20 h MEZ
Media: MUSEUM AKTUELL print und MUSEUM AKTUELL Online (mit Tausenden von Jobs in MUSC-Jobs), EXPOTIME!,
RESTAURATORENBLÄTTER - Papers in Conservation, das große Restauratoren-Wörterbuch KONSERVATIV, Europäisches Museumsportal www.museum-aktuell.de
Kommerzielle Anliegen: Medienberatung Lutz F. Boden
Glaserstraße 17, D-60599 Frankfurt am Main
T.: 0049 – (0)69 – 98959802, mobil: 0175 – 3328668
[log in to unmask]
Office hours: 9 am - 6 pm
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1