Executor Duties - how to equitably divide personal/household possessions?

[Earlybird]

How should an estate's executor best divide personal/household possessions that were not designated in the will so that the outcome is fair and equitable?

Obviously, some items have greater financial value, while others have sentimental value, but may not actually be 'worth' much.

Is there a duty to divide things equally (approx)from a financial aspect, and how can that be arrived at?

In our situation, no one wants to be petty (or have an argument), but feel uneasy that one person has asked for all the 'nicest' things. Should there be a financial reimbursement to the others?

And what is fair if several people would like to have the same items?

How about taking turns picking one thing at at a time?

One solution I have read of is to have an auction. I know that sounds very - what? - over the top/unnecessary/whatever - but it means that you all bid for what you really want, so it kind of sorts out what has most value for whom. Of course people with more money will be able to be more profligate in their bidding. Horrid if it has to come to that, but you want to avoid people feeling bitter forever! I'll be interested to see other posts on this.

Hmmm - I'm leaning toward suggesting the executor get an appraisal for jewelry, and assign a general value for each piece of artwork based on size/original vs print/recent sales price by artist etc. We can 'tally' the value of those items and who wants them. The cash/investments can be distributed in such a way as to offset the value of the specific items - and hopefully then we will come to some sort of near equitable situation for all.

Furniture is trickier because even though it is expensive to purchase new, it won't bring much if we try to sell it - so not really of 'market value'.

Anyone have any thoughts/suggestions for that approach?

The thing is, I've been thinking that this must happen all the time, so I'm surprised there's not a commonly known equitable arrangement IYSWIM - you know, a recommended good practice, rather than everyone just piping up and saying what they 'want'. It all seems so venal, and surely the people who are the most emotionally distraught are going to be the ones who roll over most easily, yet might also be the ones most upset by not having items of sentimental value to keep.

I'm sorry for your loss, btw, Earlybird.

Thank you Fauve. And you're exactly right - one would think there is (or should be) a 'standard formula' for these issues, which are faced by many families. Should the person who mainly wants sentimental mementoes rather than the 'most valuable' items be disadvantaged financially?

It smacks of 'picking over the bones' far too much for me.......and add in the emotionally charged layers of grief, guilt, entrenched family dynamics etc and it really is very difficult.

I have seen Mybaby's suggestion used in practice. The grown-up children of the deceased wrote a list in preference order of what they wanted, then threw a dice to see who went first, second and third. Then the executor (well, his clerks - me and another bod) just allocated things using the lists: ie, DD1 got first turn, the first thing on her list was a grand piano; DS1 got second turn, the piano was already gone so defaulted to the second thing on his list, a car or whatever.

This leaves it up to the children to decide what they value most highly - monetary worth or sentimental value, represented by position on the list. DS2 wanted the photo albums badly so put them first.

Make a list of items not just value but sentimental too, then circulate to all those who are benificaries, they then priortise (?sp) what they would like , get together and take turns to state preferences so all get to have their prefered items (toss a coin if you have to to decide who goes first).

If you can't get together combine the lists in a document, so it's all open and transparent, and no one feels that they "missed out" to store up resentment later

Has worked for our family in the past

Interesting approach Mumsnut and mybabysinthegarden. Obviously the person who chose the grand piano chose something important to them, that also happened to be worth alot in financial terms. Was there (or should there be) an effort to 'balance the books' financially for real value vs sentimental value?

X posted with mumsnut great minds and all that

No need as you chose which is more important to you if you want high value go for that or does your heart rule your head?

I would definitely go for the taking turns approach - start with the eldest and then take turns to 'sticker' something.

If someone values mother's ring more than the piece of priceless art on the wall, then that is up to them and vice versa.

I think it can get horribly 'dirty' feeling if monetary values are ascribed to things.

I think photo albums are an interesting case in point, especially given current interest in genealogy. Lots of people would want their kids to have access to old family albums, in case they ever wanted to do a 'Who do you think you are?' type thing.

Old photos can be copied, of course; but the original albums have cachet.

I like the sticker idea too but I would also note it's worth making sure everyone knows what is "available" for want of a better word before you start, or it may be difficult when someone "finds" a valuable item later on!

When my Dad was executor for his parents estate they made 5 groups of things (there were 5 children) with approximately equal value in each group. For example they made 5 groups of silver, 5 groups of porcelain, 5 groups of jewellery etc. Then all 5 children drew cards and the highest had first choice, the second highest next choice. Because there were lots of categories everyone ended up having first choice in some categories and last choice in others.

In my graandparents´house, I know my father and his siblings did literally walk around the house with little coloured stickers. I think they all had a limited number (can´t remember how many) of things they were able to sticker, and so each chose items of sentimental value or monetary value to them.

Yes, I've read about the sticker thing. Would you be allowed to stick a sticker on something already stickered, and then negotiate with the other sticker-putter?

Just last weekend I was visiting my parents and my Grandmother has asked her grandchildren and great-grandchildren to tell her what they want from her house after her death.

There are quite a lot of valuable antiques and everything has been photographed and documented for insurance purposes so we have all just gone through 'the book' and written our names against the things that we like. If there is more than one name against anything then we will just negotiate (although I know that this is easier to do now than it would be if Granny was already dead). I think that everything that is unclaimed will be sold and the money distributed so that the differences in the value of objects inherited by each person is evened out.

All of this is good food for thought.

Bran, my grandmother did the same thing and it would have worked well if all heirs had stated what they wanted prior to her death. Those we did, got what they wanted and were generally pleased. The few who hadn't taken 'staked a claim upfront' ('ooh, too morbid - can't think about it' or 'will do it later, not got time now') were unhappy. They certainly 'got' things, but seemed to feel slighted.

I think what is so tricky in these situations is knowing what things are actually worth. To a certain extent, artwork and jewelry (and maybe silver) has a 'real' market value. Furniture - while very expensive to purchase new - is not worth much 'used', unless it is 'fine' antique stuff.

My mother's possessions are not generally worthy of an estate 'appraisal', but it has been surprising to see just how little some of the furniture woud bring on the open market (dining table/chairs/sideboard in particular) - should we dispose of it. That adds to the challenge of figuring 'value' for equality purposes.

Good luck with it, Earlybird. Secondhand furniture is worth next to nothing, that's why lots of people Freecycle it - at least it gets taken away free, and you feel it's going to someone who needs it.

For sentimental value items which someone else takes, you can always take a photo to remind you.

Sorry to revive an oldish thread, but this sounds interesting - Radio 4's You and Yours is covering this very topic. They should've asked us, eh?