Trustuser:
“what i dont like about your method is you are combining assets with a financial value and assets with an emotional value. you are requiring people to place a dollar value on their emotions. some people are much more sentimental, and will place a higher dollar amount on an item, because of it. in your scenario, the more emotional person will come out the loser.”
I couldn’t disagree anymore with what you said. In my example the person that placed the most sentimental value on the object became the owner of that object. The other person was compensated, however that does not mean the other person didn’t want the object. What’s the alternative? The person that sends the executer of the estate more candy at Christmas gets the object? Or they plead their case to a judge, thereby granting the object to the person that speaks the best or has the best lawyer?
“in your example, there is only one personal item. but in real life, you are apt to have many items”
My example can work for X amount of objects. Think of the items in a house. You could divide all the items using this methodology. At the end of the bidding, cash would make both parties even.
“i would be more apt to split the appraised items in half.”
If both people want the item at the appraised value then would have them sell it for less than they think it’s worth? Furthermore, appraising and selling items can be expensive, take time and are never 100% accurate.
“and then do some other bartering system for the personal items. if i can have dad's favorite couch, you can have his chair and watch - that sort of thing.”
I can see it now, son #1 says to son #2 “Dad’s couch is worth big money, tell yah what I’ll take the Mercedes you can have the couch.”
Curb1:
Sure it becomes more complicated as you add more types items and beneficiaries. But any alternative requires a third party that the beneficiaries trust equally. Practically speaking, that is impossible, this system takes all the subjectivity out of the equation.