Inheritance - sharing of heirlooms

[McEwan]

This is more of a future problem than a real life problem and realize it’s a lucky problem. In our family we stand to inherit some heirlooms (antique paintings, furniture, clocks, etc) as well as what might be cash. My DB has announced he isn’t interested in being responsible for the heirlooms that have been in family for quite a few generations. Fair enough, but it means that we will likely inherit the heirlooms (that we wouldn’t consider sharing), and DB plans to inherit the equal sum in cash.

AIBU to think this would be unfair?

Say no.

Ps, when I wrote sharing, I meant selling. We wouldn’t consider selling

Of course it is! You get the responsibility of looking after heirlooms and he gets cash. Don't agree.

Your brother is BU, he’d be getting a sentimental yet completely worthless teddy or blanket if he was my son.

If you don’t want to sell them, and your DB does, then it’s fair.

If you AND your DB don’t want to sell them, but he’s just not interested in ‘being responsible’ for them, then it’s not really fair, no.

But it’s hard to say what would be fair in that case, really. Because ultimately if you inherit the heirlooms their value should be reflected somehow so that your DB doesn’t lose out. Even if he’s being annoying.

I agree. The heirlooms and cash are two separate categories and need splitting separately. If he doesn't want an heirloom, all well and good but he can't choose to effectively have you "buy" one off him by taking cash instead.

Well, he’s NBU not to want the responsibility of looking after heirlooms but HIBU to insist on receiving a cash sum instead. Although how upset would you be if he sold the heirlooms he’d inherited? Because he wouldn’t be unreasonable to do that if he didn’t want them as “things”.

Yup two issues. Cash should be split. Heirlooms split.
I'm afraid what you've got there is a grasping git.
If there's no cash left, and with care costs that's possible, I think you will find he develops a passionate interest in said heirlooms and flogs his share.

Git.

What would your DB prefer to do with them? If his preference would be to sell them and split the cash between you, I think it’s reasonable. If you inherit something worth (say) £10K and he wants to sell it and split it fifty fifty, you can say “no, I’ll keep the £10K item and we’ll still split the rest of the money fifty fifty.”

If he doesn’t want them sold and just wants you to look after them, then he’s not being reasonable.

It's not really down to him what he 'plans' to inherit, is it? Surely he'll get what comes to him in the will.

Nope. Half of the stuff and half the cash.

He can ‘plan’ what he likes: these decisions are for the owners of the assets!

If I were them I’d divide money and hierlooms separately and equally. Anyone inheriting the latter, even if when it’s hypothetical saying they’d ‘never sell’ could, in the event, sell them at any time anyway.

Who wants a load of old stuff? Difficult and expensive to care for (clocks), costly to insure if really worth anything, and normally quite out of keeping in a contemporary house, and prone to damage, especially of there are children running about.

You'll need the money as well as the stuff to pay for keeping it!

I wouldn't want the heirlooms either but it's only fair he takes half of them and sells them if he wants.

Firstly, obviously it is up to whoever owns them now to decide what to do with them in their will.

However, if it is all left to you equally, and he wants to sell stuff and you don't, then, in effect, you do need to give him half the value in my opinion, or you are depriving him of assets.
I mean, when my parents died, we held on to one or two things that we each chose to keep as mementos, but this sounds that it isn't about that, it is about ownership of art and antiques that could potentially be worth a reasonable amount of money if sold ?
For our momentos, there was no 'cash equivalent'. I also ended up with some large framed Victorian photos of relations, because my siblings didn't want them - I doubt if they are worth much money though and my siblings were happy for me to hold onto them.

I think that you would have to be ok with him selling his share of the heirlooms, if you want it divided equally. Half cash, half heirlooms, and he gets to do what he likes with his stuff.

Surely it depends on what the will says?

I agree with you op, I think.

However hypothetically doesn't it depend how the will is written?

If for example, it was written along the lines of 'all my estate to be divided equally between X, Y and Z' it would mean he would be entitled to a share of the assets which he could then choose to sell, I guess.

So if you desperately wanted them kept in the family, you'd have to buy him out.

Or if the will specifies cash gifts but there is not enough cash in the estate to meet them.

I believe (but I'm not a specialist in this area) that a beneficiary can force a sale of a house for example, even if other beneficiaries want to keep it. I presume it would be the same for other assets.

@Thingsthatgo

I think that you would have to be ok with him selling his share of the heirlooms, if you want it divided equally. Half cash, half heirlooms, and he gets to do what he likes with his stuff.

This is simple and fair. What wouldn’t be fair is to expect your dbro to have to hold on to heirlooms that he just doesn’t want. If you want the heirlooms to stay in the family, you’ll have to take them instead of cash.

I think it's fair if you don't want him to sell his "share" of the heirlooms. However, if he is getting cash instead, it should be at the sale price (how much a dealer would pay you for the item) rather than the retail (what a dealer would charge you)/insurance value, which will be a lot higher.

So put another way, he's made it clear that he has no interest in keeping the heirlooms and would want to sell them. So if you do want to keep them - and therefore they can't be sold and the money split - you would need to give him half their value in cash instead.

I actually think that's fair.

If you would be happy for him to sell his share of the heirlooms then YANBU to insist on even split of cash and even split of heirlooms.

If you would want to stop him selling heirlooms then what he proposes is more sensible. Any heirlooms he inherits will be his to do with whatever he chooses, including sell.

We have family stuff from dhs parents.
The rest of the cash was divvied up equally.
The heirlooms were divided according to what people wanted. Agreement that if the person wants to sell in the future, family get first refusal. If any of it turns out to be significant (it wont) it would be discussed ( his family are civilised)

it really depends how valuable the heirlooms are

if the monetary value of estate excluding heirlooms is not much and that fancy painting is £45k then it's hardly fair that the money is split evenly and someone gets the painting, as well no strings attached

everything should be valued totted up and shared out evenly according to value imo.

When my father died, my mother just disposed of most of his possessions, including valuable antiques/objects without giving a single thought to the fact that I might have wanted to keep something for sentimental value. Everything, the paintings he had done as an amateur painter, his books she simply threw away or gave to her friends...One of the many reasons why I no longer want any contact with that woman. She also destroyed a letter he had written to me to be open after his death, All I have left of my father is a few things that he gave me while he was alive.

My main point is of course think about equal share of cash, but also try to agree on what has a sentimental value to you and your kin. It is really unpleasant when relatives just throw away what was left of someone's life without any thought for what you would have wanted to keep to remember them...