# Executor allowing my sister to have certain assests for "sentimental reasons"



## heynick (19 Jul 2017)

I am one of four siblings. My mother's will dictates that her estate is to be shared equally between all four siblings. The will makes no mention of any individual items that were to be given to one sibling or another.

My eldest brother is the executor of the estate.

He has allowed my sister to have some valuable artworks my mother owned because "mum would have wanted her to have them". My other brother agrees with the idea that my sister should have the artworks.

So I'm faced with a familiar in-family argument that it's "three against one" so I just have to live with it.

My feeling is that because the artworks are of some value, by allowing my sister to have them without any compensation to me for my share of their value, is not fair and isn't in accordance with the terms of the will.

Am I correct in assuming that even if it is "three against one" the executor doesn't have the right to deprive me of my share of the value of the artworks?


----------



## IsleOfMan (19 Jul 2017)

I would suggest that the artworks are valued and if your sister wants to purchase them from the estate then she can do so if everyone is in agreement. You own one quarter of them.


----------



## Jazz01 (19 Jul 2017)

heynick - just before you go down the road to claim your % of the artworks - is it worth falling out with your siblings over this (as you may do in this case) ? 

In the greater scheme of things, it's "only money", and I know your sister will benefit more for getting these, but so what...


----------



## heynick (19 Jul 2017)

Dear IsleofMan,
I really appreciate your reply. Not just because it confirms what I thought but also because it was so quick. I've been brow beaten by this issue and really wanted some advice "right now!". What a great forum. Thank you sincerely.


----------



## heynick (19 Jul 2017)

Dear Jazz01, 
I appreciate your sound advice. Unfortunately the falling out began some time ago and this is just one example of many  things that are happening to my disadvantage.


----------



## Easeler (19 Jul 2017)

There is always one, if it was your mothers wish that everything should be shared equally well than that should be the case.  I come from a large family myself, 8 sisters so I know all about them, I would dig my heels in on this one and get what your entitled to because when they are gone they are gone.


----------



## tallpaul (19 Jul 2017)

How many artworks are there? If there are four, take one each. If there are only two (or three), as your other siblings aren't too pushed, you get one and your sister gets one (or two). Quite simple really.


----------



## john luc (19 Jul 2017)

Just me tupence worth,Yes you do own 1/4th the monetary value and if it's important to you then bring it up with your siblings. The artwork may however be of sentimental value and as such your sister may have enjoyed them as much as your mother so if this is the case then that needs to be part of the conversation too. To fall out with siblings is not a option I would assume


----------



## elcato (19 Jul 2017)

Is there other items in the house that will require people to take ? Suggest that you number these and draw lots as to who gets them. Then people can trade things between each other or even give them away.


----------



## DeeKie (19 Jul 2017)

tallpaul said:


> How many artworks are there? If there are four, take one each. If there are only two (or three), as your other siblings aren't too pushed, you get one and your sister gets one (or two). Quite simple really.


They will not be all the same value. If it were me I'd allow her have them provided the market value on date of death is deducted from her quarter. She gets the paintings, but fair account is taken of it.


----------



## Thirsty (20 Jul 2017)

How do you know they are valuable?


----------



## demoivre (20 Jul 2017)

heynick said:


> Am I correct in assuming that even if it is "three against one" the executor doesn't have the right to deprive me of my share of the value of the artworks?



You are correct. The executor doesn't seem to understand that his *function* is to make sure that you get what you are entitled to as per the will, not what he thinks should happen or what anyone else thinks for that matter. ! If your mother had particular wishes regarding specific items she should have said so in the will.


----------



## Laramie (20 Jul 2017)

I would put money on it that she already has your late mothers jewellery/rings etc


----------



## heynick (20 Jul 2017)

Wow! A great variety of suggestions. Thanks everyone for your help. I'm really glad I found this forum and will keep in touch as things progress.


----------



## Evie1962 (20 Jul 2017)

We had much the same issues with a relative's will, and one beneficiary made sure they had the pick of the choicest items before anyone else even knew about them. Another beneficiary made the suggestion of drawing lots and was told by an executor that a "raffle" would be inappropriate. In the end all that was left to divide was tat that nobody wanted. If you don't object to behaviour like this, you're letting them walk all over you, and if you do object you're seen as a grabber and troublemaker. It's a no win scenario. 

When I come to do my own will -much delayed- I'll be itemising everything.


----------



## noproblem (20 Jul 2017)

Evie1962 said:


> We had much the same issues with a relative's will, and one beneficiary made sure they had the pick of the choicest items before anyone else even knew about them. Another beneficiary made the suggestion of drawing lots and was told by an executor that a "raffle" would be inappropriate. In the end all that was left to divide was tat that nobody wanted. If you don't object to behaviour like this, you're letting them walk all over you, and if you do object you're seen as a grabber and troublemaker. It's a no win scenario.
> 
> When I come to do my own will -much delayed- I'll be itemising everything.



That'll be lovely until it's realised you've forgotten something.


----------



## Thirsty (21 Jul 2017)

You know in the end its all just 'stuff'...


----------



## Cervelo (21 Jul 2017)

noproblem said:


> That'll be lovely until it's realised you've forgotten something.



Or someone!!

When my mother in-law passed she left contents of her house to her three kids and it was decided between them the best way to divide the contents was each to pick one item and then repeat until all divided up 
Nobody got everything they wanted but they all got some of the items they wanted and the best thing of all was the was no arguments or falling out between them.


----------



## samfarrell (24 Jul 2017)

In cases like this i think it is best to get property liquidated asap and then that the money can be divided up equally. Otherwise someone is usually going to feel hard done by...


----------



## DirectDevil (24 Jul 2017)

samfarrell said:


> In cases like this i think it is best to get property liquidated asap and then that the money can be divided up equally. Otherwise someone is usually going to feel hard done by...



This is a sound idea.

The variant that I was thinking of would be that a schedule of assets for distribution amongst the beneficiaries should be compiled with an associated monetary value. The parties should then sit down and agree the formal and final split. Otherwise, you will have the situation described by samfarrell.

Incidentally, would the executor not have completed a CA24 Inland Revenue Affidavit as part of the probate application ? If so, should there not be a schedule of assets and associated values already compiled ?

BTW the executor does not have unfettered discretion or jurisdiction over the distribution of the assets.

Realistically, in the final cut, some beneficiaries will do slightly better or slightly worse than others but you will never get it perfectly straight by agreement unless you follow samfarrell's valid suggestion of liquidating the assets.


----------



## Vanessa (1 Aug 2017)

The phrase "Its what she would have wanted" is the phrase that causes most problems in these situations.
We know exactly what she wanted. She stated it in her will.
This is just another example of one family member taking advantage of another. If the family had respect for each other they would sit down and sort out this amicably in accordance with the terms of the will.


----------



## SlugBreath (1 Aug 2017)

DirectDevil said:


> Incidentally, would the executor not have completed a CA24 Inland Revenue Affidavit as part of the probate application ? If so, should there not be a schedule of assets and associated values already compiled ?


In our case, the executor decided that many of the items had "nil" value. He told us that he rang up Herman White in Rathmines who do furniture auctions and described the items over the phone to the auctioneer. That was the extent of the work that he put in to the valuation of furniture etc. Nobody even knows if he actually made the phone call. In the end he gave the "nil" value items to his own daughter. Despite the fact that these items are sold for decent sums on Adverts and DoneDeal.


----------



## Seagull (1 Aug 2017)

The question is whether it's worth causing a major rift over this. I'd certainly be less than impressed over behaviour like this. I'm not sure whether it would be enough  to have him removed as executor, but I suspect not. It's certainly a very obvious conflict of interests, and shows that he is not acting on behalf of all the beneficiaries.


----------



## LS400 (1 Aug 2017)

You need to nip this in the bud. Everything has a value, and this value has to be split 4 ways. 

Anything that has an agreed Nill value by the 4 of you, is either to be given to a charity or discarded.

The elder brother is already showing complete disregard for his position and your mothers wishes, and he need to be aware you will not be made a mug of.

And finally, I don't see a happy ending with your siblings no matter what actions you are to take, as they already have shown a complete disrespect for you and your mothers wish.

Take them on, and good luck.

Ls


----------



## On a Plain (8 Aug 2017)

At the end of the day you can have the executor removed if he has not performed his duties to that stated in the will. If the will states equal share, the executor must obey. As someone pointed out probably the only fair way is to sell the assets and divide the proceeds.
Its fairly common practice for items like artwork and furniture to be sent to auction in order to execute a will


----------

