Permabanned
Someone dies in your family. No will. They leave their house as you'd expect - sofas, tv, stereo, carpets, beds etc.
You are appointed executor of the estate. This question is not concerning the sale of the house - it is concerning the STUFF in the house.
For this theoretical question there are say 5 family members who were all directly related to the deceased (all sons and daughters) - and all live locally.
Which system should you as executor impose to determine who gets which items out of that house?
1) Just tell every family member to go and help themselves to anything they fancy from the house
Advantages: Easy to organise
Disadvantages: Someone may zoom up to the house as fast as possible, take EVERYTHING, then 'car-boot' it all the weekend later for the wonga - and everyone who intended to be reasonable with the 'choose what you really want' instruction gets nothing
(and yes I've known this to happen)
2) Tell every family member to write a list of what they want from the house then discuss where there are any overlaps (as in, ok - you have the toaster, I'll have the hall table - deal?)
Advantages: Relatively easy
Disadvantages: Could lead to negotiation lasting hours - people's hurt feelings as they feel other family member is not being reasonable, someone writing 'I want EVERYTHING' again just to give them the greatest negotiating power etc etc.
3) 'Its all goes to charity. Deal with it.'
Advantages: Easy quick simple and some Greek beaten-up donkeys get fed for a while.
Disadvantages: Everyone hates you as no-one got anything.
4) Any item you want, you write in an envelope your bid for that item (silent auction). If you win, er, the stereo - you pay that bid amount to the other family members
Advantages: It's formulaic who wins - so no room for objection
Disadvantages: Beurocratic. A rich family member could snap up loads and loads of things - when a lot of the things have a purely emotional connection. eg. Why should the person who earns most effectively have sole-ownership of all the private correspondance? Should someone who is poor have NO physical link whatsoever back to the deceased because they've been 100% out-bid?
5) Whoever is declared 'the executor' just doles out the stuff as he thinks is fair, stating 'Look, you get the wine glasses, he gets the fridge - she gets the piano as she's the only one that can play it thats just the way it's gonna be I frankly don't care if you're not happy ..'.
Advantages: No negotiation, haggling etc. Your decision is FINAL. You can also reward more the daughter that looked after mother for the last 2 years -- and reward LESS the son that didn't even bother calling for the last 3 years etc.
Disadvantages: Someone or multiple people will probably hate you as you gave someone else the .. er .. grandfather clock. You may make mistakes (give person 1 yet another microwave, when person 2 doesn't have a microwave at all). Some may see you as exercising massive favouritism.
6) Some other system?
It seems like nothing is going to work How would you proceed? What is fairest?
You are appointed executor of the estate. This question is not concerning the sale of the house - it is concerning the STUFF in the house.
For this theoretical question there are say 5 family members who were all directly related to the deceased (all sons and daughters) - and all live locally.
Which system should you as executor impose to determine who gets which items out of that house?
1) Just tell every family member to go and help themselves to anything they fancy from the house
Advantages: Easy to organise
Disadvantages: Someone may zoom up to the house as fast as possible, take EVERYTHING, then 'car-boot' it all the weekend later for the wonga - and everyone who intended to be reasonable with the 'choose what you really want' instruction gets nothing
(and yes I've known this to happen)2) Tell every family member to write a list of what they want from the house then discuss where there are any overlaps (as in, ok - you have the toaster, I'll have the hall table - deal?)
Advantages: Relatively easy
Disadvantages: Could lead to negotiation lasting hours - people's hurt feelings as they feel other family member is not being reasonable, someone writing 'I want EVERYTHING' again just to give them the greatest negotiating power etc etc.
3) 'Its all goes to charity. Deal with it.'
Advantages: Easy quick simple and some Greek beaten-up donkeys get fed for a while.
Disadvantages: Everyone hates you as no-one got anything.
4) Any item you want, you write in an envelope your bid for that item (silent auction). If you win, er, the stereo - you pay that bid amount to the other family members
Advantages: It's formulaic who wins - so no room for objection
Disadvantages: Beurocratic. A rich family member could snap up loads and loads of things - when a lot of the things have a purely emotional connection. eg. Why should the person who earns most effectively have sole-ownership of all the private correspondance? Should someone who is poor have NO physical link whatsoever back to the deceased because they've been 100% out-bid?
5) Whoever is declared 'the executor' just doles out the stuff as he thinks is fair, stating 'Look, you get the wine glasses, he gets the fridge - she gets the piano as she's the only one that can play it thats just the way it's gonna be I frankly don't care if you're not happy ..'.
Advantages: No negotiation, haggling etc. Your decision is FINAL. You can also reward more the daughter that looked after mother for the last 2 years -- and reward LESS the son that didn't even bother calling for the last 3 years etc.
Disadvantages: Someone or multiple people will probably hate you as you gave someone else the .. er .. grandfather clock. You may make mistakes (give person 1 yet another microwave, when person 2 doesn't have a microwave at all). Some may see you as exercising massive favouritism.
6) Some other system?
It seems like nothing is going to work
How would you proceed? What is fairest?
Last edited:
