It really is a matter for the testator how his/her estate is divided. At the same time, testators should realize they can’t speak from the grave and it is unreasonable / impractical to cater for all eventualities on how an estate can be divided up in a will, but avoiding disputes between beneficiaries should not be a default, or a deciding factor for the testator.
There are various situations why a house or its proceeds after a sale would not be divided equally between the beneficiaries. This could include: (a) one or more beneficiaries have health problems and the testator wishes to leave a greater proportion of the estate to them; (b) a beneficiary has provided care etc. to the testator who wishes this to be rewarded by a greater percentage share of the estate; (c) a beneficiary is of a special category (e.g. a surviving spouse or is disabled) and the testator wishes to grant them a right to reside in the property for life; etc.
It’s not that difficult to specify a will that leaves unequal shares. For example, from a will for which I was the executor: “As for my house at X, the same to be put on the market for sale as soon as possible after my death and the proceeds therefrom divided in the following manner, that is to say X% to beneficiary A for his/her own use and benefit absolutely; (b) all the remaining surplus from the sale of the house to be divided equally between all of my children, XXX, each to receive an equal share.”
Otherwise the will can simply state that the house be sold on the market and the proceeds divided equally between all of the beneficiaries.
However, if the house is not being sold i.e. is being left to the beneficiaries, it would be prudent for the will to state how the ownership of the house is being bequeathed, i.e. as a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common. Each of these has implications for the beneficiaries and may also have tax implications. It’s unreasonable to give the executor the power to determine the legal form of ownership.
There are various situations why a house or its proceeds after a sale would not be divided equally between the beneficiaries. This could include: (a) one or more beneficiaries have health problems and the testator wishes to leave a greater proportion of the estate to them; (b) a beneficiary has provided care etc. to the testator who wishes this to be rewarded by a greater percentage share of the estate; (c) a beneficiary is of a special category (e.g. a surviving spouse or is disabled) and the testator wishes to grant them a right to reside in the property for life; etc.
It’s not that difficult to specify a will that leaves unequal shares. For example, from a will for which I was the executor: “As for my house at X, the same to be put on the market for sale as soon as possible after my death and the proceeds therefrom divided in the following manner, that is to say X% to beneficiary A for his/her own use and benefit absolutely; (b) all the remaining surplus from the sale of the house to be divided equally between all of my children, XXX, each to receive an equal share.”
Otherwise the will can simply state that the house be sold on the market and the proceeds divided equally between all of the beneficiaries.
However, if the house is not being sold i.e. is being left to the beneficiaries, it would be prudent for the will to state how the ownership of the house is being bequeathed, i.e. as a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common. Each of these has implications for the beneficiaries and may also have tax implications. It’s unreasonable to give the executor the power to determine the legal form of ownership.