I'm somewhat loath to report on this, given the firey debates we've had over this issue, so this will be my fist and only post on the recent events. Please follow the link: (Adobe Acrobat or another .pdf reader is required)

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063662P.pdf

Back to the trial court, not a total victory for the R&LHS, and not a total defeat for MOT or St. Louis County. It appears as if the Court of Appeals wants the trial court to do some more fact-finding before it enters final judgment.

Sorry that it is a few days late, but I've been busy with my own entry into the legal profession the past few weeks.

With all due respect to Mr. Wilkins I must observe that the decision of the appeals court will be viewed by most third party observers as a major "win" for the Lackawanna Chapter: as it in essence tells the District Court that it erred in granting the defendant a summary judgement of dismissal, AND it (the District Court) now must conduct a trial based on the many complex issues cited by the Appeals Courts research/ruling.
I can tell you that the Chapter is determined to legally persue this as far as the system allows and as I've posted previously I wish that the 2 parties could reach a negoitiated settlement of some sort vs. burning all this money on lawyers.
I can also tell you that if St.Louis thinks that they'll "outlast" the other side money wise-they're dead wrong as I know for a fact that the folks behind the Chapter have VERY deep pockets!
I urge all interested to carefully read the Appellate Courts ruling as it speaks to a number of issues relevant to the preservation industry and certainly gives food for thought to many areas of "loans" of artifacts etc.
Ross Rowland

While I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on becoming one, in my opinion after reading the court opinion, it looks like it can still go either way when it goes back to the district court for the following reasons:

For the Lackawanna chapter:

1. The 952 does not appear on the property transfer record, either under the MoT owned property or restricted property (items on loan or with transfer restrictions) listings. It could almost be said because of this, the 952 is still in the auspices of the Non-Profit Museum of Transport, and not the City of St. Louis MoT.

2. The MoT under St Louis did not proceed to claim the 952 as abandoned property, and give either L&RHS (original loan agreement signee) or Lackawanna Chapter, Notice of property abandonment per the Missouri Museum Property Act of 1991 as sited in the Opinion once they took ownership of the museum from the Non-Profit museum group.

For the SL-MoT:

1. Original agreement with the MoT was worded as permanent loan, with no official document defining how the loan was to be handled, as far as loaner reclaiming property, the transfer of ownership, or the definition of permanent.

---

I guess we will have to wait and see how this turns out, hopefully there will not be a need for a Solomon decision, Cleave the 952 in half giving the Lackawanna the left half and SL-MoT the right half.

The one bright side of this is that it is shedding light on the need of Loaners and Museums to get their agreements spelled out as far as conditions of loan, including disposal clauses and repossession clauses.

Just my opinion,

Rich Cizik

Thanks for posting the link as I had been wondering how the case was going. The opinion should be required reading for every museum, historic group that engages in the loan of any objects.

Seems like the meaning of the phrase "permanent loan" might have some significance.

MX

Isn't the term "permanent loan' somewhat of an oxymoron? A loan is by definition temprorary, to be repaid based on certain predetermined conditions. Permanent means fixed, immutable. No wonder there's a problem.

It would never cross my mind to loan ANYTHING to a museum at all, under any circumstances. I know too many people who have done this for other, non-railroad-related items, and over time to be told by the museum that the item was viewed as a "donation" which wouldn't be given back. Most of these cases were handshake deals or the people who had agreed to give the item(s) back wasn't there anymore to verify ownership. I have been asked plenty of times by museums for the longterm loan of items in my military collection. I have declined them all, and gotten a lot of harsh replies, but I don't want to end up in a fight like this down the road, or have my wife involved in one if I step out in front of a bus tomorrow.
There's a huge flap with a buddy of mine who loaned some items to the Hopalong Cassidy museum at a now-defunct amusement park in the Midwest. The whole operation went bankrupt only after a few months, EVERYTHING is being auctioned off including the contents of the museum including the loaned items! My friend has gotten a lawyer for this, but has been told that the items are assets of the company who owned the park, loaned or not and that he can bid on them if he wants them back. His lawyer has advised he doesn't think he'll be getting his stuff back the easy way!

There are two types of loans; temporary and permanent. The way I understand it is this:

In a TEMPORARY loan, the owner of the artifact keeps title to the artifact but can request that the museum return it at any time.

In a PERMANENT loan, the owner of the artifact keeps title to the artifact but CANNOT request that the museum return it, because the loan is PERMANENT! Because the owner of the artifact keeps title to it, the museum also cannot dispose of the artifact later because the owner still has title. Thus a permanent loan is a safeguard that the artifact remains where the owner originally wanted it to go.

And in a DONATION, the owner loses all rights to the artifact and if the museum wants to dispose of the artifact later through sale or scrap, they can legally do so.

Each of these catagories has its place. And a WRITTEN agreement between the two parties involved (owner and museum) should be drawn up so that there can be no misunderstanding later.

Les

So if the chapter wants the equipment returned short of the agreed term of the loan (i.e.: permanent), shouldn't the museum be entitled to fair and reasonable fees for the years they provided secure storage for the equipment?

MX

Switching tracks here...

Just what is the significance of the engine to the Museum in Missouri?
In other words, why are they fighting so hard to keep it?

Is it a prized piece which elevates the stature of the museum?
Or maybe the museum feels it holds title to the engine and would like the benefit of a cash injection as we have seen in Roanoke with NKP 763?
Or perhaps an investment in time and dollars led to a "loving adoption" of the engine?

Either way, the engine would seemingly be more suited to a collection based in it's original territory (if such a satisfactory location even exists).

BTW - what a great switcher it would make at Steamtown (atleast in theory). Is it restorable to operation? Not knowing actual numbers, but I wonder how far the funds spent to restore the Baldwin could have taken this engine towards operation?


/Mitch

Thanks for the clarification of terms. Makes sense.

Referencing a prior TRAINS article I believe the reason that MOT is anxious to keep it is that is a 4-4-0 camelback, a very unique example of motive power.

Many museums have collections that are regional in nature, but the one at MOT is national in scope, with items from lines as far apart as the Boston & Maine or Southern Pacific. Also remember that this dispute has its origins from the very early 1950s when the principals thought it was adequate, but what was clear to them then is now in dispute for reasons they did not forsee. The definitions mentioned are good, but the law may not support them and varies from state to state.

That would depend on the terms of the original agreement. It could be that providing storage for the equipment is in lieu of rental payments for use (in this case, display) of the equipment. -- Ray

Would a lease agreement, one that had a token rental payment of $1 per year, better protect the interests of the asset owner?