§ 61.082.Handling and Transportation

A condition on the process itself, and it applies whether or not the exhibition immunity does.

A court may not issue any process of attachment, execution, sequestration, replevin, or distress or of any kind of seizure, levy, or sale on a work of fine art unless the court requires, as part of the order authorizing the process, that the work is handled and transported in a manner that complies with the accepted standards of the artistic community.

The requirement is on the order, not on the officer. A court that issues process without including the condition has issued process it was forbidden to issue.

Four measures are named as examples, "if appropriate": maintenance of proper environmental conditions, proper maintenance, security, and insurance coverage.

The environmental condition is the one a court would not otherwise think of. Temperature and humidity ruin paintings, and a work stored in an evidence room or a warehouse can be destroyed without anyone touching it.

The provision addresses a genuine mismatch. An officer executing a writ is equipped to seize vehicles and inventory, and the ordinary duty to keep seized property securely says nothing about conservation.

The standard chosen is external to the law: "the accepted standards of the artistic community". That imports museum and conservation practice rather than requiring a court to invent a standard.

The section applies to any work of fine art, not only to one on exhibition — so a work seized from a private owner is covered as fully as one taken from a gallery.

The interest protected is not only the owner’s. A damaged work is worth less to the creditor too, so the condition serves the seizure as well as the object.