B-148593, NOV. 1, 1963
Highlights
REQUESTED THAT WE INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE IS ANOTHER HEIR OF LEO LOHRMAN. THAT WE ADVISE YOU IF ANY MONEY IS DUE THE DECEDENT'S DAUGHTER. HENCE WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SON. AS SUCH INFORMATION CAME TO US FROM ONE WHO NORMALLY WOULD HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS. HE APPARENTLY WOULD HAVE REACHED 21 YEARS OF AGE PRIOR TO JULY 1963. BY WHOM HE COULD HAVE HAD CHILDREN. SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OTHER CHILD BY LEO LOHRMAN. UNLESS WE ARE FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT BY THE SISTER. WAS INCORRECT. WE WOULD HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONTINUE TO WITHHOLD THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION.
B-148593, NOV. 1, 1963
TO MRS. DORENE R. NIELSEN:
YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 12, 1963, REQUESTED THAT WE INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE IS ANOTHER HEIR OF LEO LOHRMAN, DECEASED, AND THAT WE ADVISE YOU IF ANY MONEY IS DUE THE DECEDENT'S DAUGHTER, SANDRA LEE LOHRMAN, IN ADDITION TO THE $995.16 YOU RECEIVED AS HER LEGAL GUARDIAN PURSUANT TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION'S SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED MAY 25, 1960.
ALSO YOU REFER TO THE FACT THAT SANDRA LEE LOHRMAN--- OR YOU AS HER LEGAL GUARDIAN RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS OF THE DECEDENT'S INSURANCE POLICY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 17, 1954, 5 U.S.C. 2093. THAT SECTION EXPRESSLY PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT IF ANY PERSON OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER THAT SECTION DOES NOT MAKE CLAIM THEREFOR WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DEATH OF THE EMPLOYEE, PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS MAY BE MADE IN THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE SET OUT IN SAID SECTION 4 AS IF SUCH PERSON HAD PREDECEASED THE EMPLOYEE, AND THAT ANY SUCH PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS SHALL BE A BAR TO RECOVERY BY ANY OTHER PERSON. WE POINT OUT SUCH AUTHORITY APPLIES ONLY TO THE RIGHT TO CLAIM UNDER THE INSURANCE LAW. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE UNPAID COMPENSATION UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 3, 1950, 5 U.S.C. 61F, 61G.
IN OUR LETTERS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1960, AND APRIL 20, 1962, WE ADVISED THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING YOU THAT THE DECEDENT'S SISTER, MRS. MARYBELLE L. FOREIGN, HAD INFORMED US ON JULY 15, 1959, THAT A 17 YEAR OLD SON SURVIVED LEO LOHRMAN. ALSO, WE ADVISED YOUR ATTORNEYS THAT THE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, POST OFFICE REPORTED THAT MRS. FOREIGN HAD MOVED FROM THE ADDRESS SHE GAVE US, AND HAD LEFT NO FORWARDING ADDRESS. HENCE WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SON. HOWEVER, AS SUCH INFORMATION CAME TO US FROM ONE WHO NORMALLY WOULD HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, IT CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR OUR WITHHOLDING THE BALANCE ($995.16) WHICH, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, WOULD BE REGARDED AS DUE THE SON IN HIS OWN RIGHT. HE APPARENTLY WOULD HAVE REACHED 21 YEARS OF AGE PRIOR TO JULY 1963.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT LEO LOHRMAN DIVORCED YOU IN 1946, AND THAT HE HAD OTHER WIVES WHOM HE DIVORCED PRIOR TO HIS DEATH, AND BY WHOM HE COULD HAVE HAD CHILDREN. HOWEVER, IT MAY BE THAT YOU COULD OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE DECEDENT'S FATHER OR BROTHER AT HILLSDALE, R.R. 1, INDIANA (WALTER LOHRMAN OR FOREST P. LOHRMAN) OR THE BROTHER, LESLIE LOHRMAN, BRAZIL, INDIANA, CONCERNING THE WHEREABOUTS OF MARYBELLE L. FOREIGN AND THEN WRITE HER FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SON TO WHOM SHE REFERRED.
IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR STATEMENTS IN WRITING FROM THE FATHER OR BROTHERS NAMED, SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OTHER CHILD BY LEO LOHRMAN, AND UNLESS WE ARE FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT BY THE SISTER, MARYBELLE FOREIGN, THAT HER PREVIOUS INFORMATION OF JULY 15, 1959, WAS INCORRECT, WE WOULD HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONTINUE TO WITHHOLD THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION.
ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD OUR PREVIOUS ACTION IN THIS CASE MUST BE SUSTAINED.