Property content

Yorkshireman99

Very sensible but in the OP's case it does not alter the fact that his sister stole it all.

Malthusian

But SevenOfNine's post about why she would also steal all the jewellery in the OP's sister's position does throw some light on the moral dimension. I sympathise with that position, by the way, notwithstanding the use of the word "steal".

Is it still theft pure and simple if the solicitor deducts the value of the jewellery from the sister's share of the estate, and she makes no attempt to contest this? Simple yes, pure I'm not so sure. Legally it's still theft but the net result is simply a reallocation of how the assets of the estate are shared out.

It would morally remain pure and simple theft if the brothers attach the same sentimental value to the jewellery collection as their sister, but the fact that they intend on giving it to their wives suggests they don't.

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

But SevenOfNine's post about why she would also steal all the jewellery in the OP's sister's position does throw some light on the moral dimension. I sympathise with that position, by the way, notwithstanding the use of the word "steal".

Is it still theft pure and simple if the solicitor deducts the value of the jewellery from the sister's share of the estate, and she makes no attempt to contest this? Simple yes, pure I'm not so sure. Legally it's still theft but the net result is simply a reallocation of how the assets of the estate are shared out.

It would morally remain pure and simple theft if the brothers attach the same sentimental value to the jewellery collection as their sister, but the fact that they intend on giving it to their wives suggests they don't.

I don't see any moral issue as far as the OP is concerned. The sister has stolen the items and refuses to return ithem. What the OP might want to do with the items if they are recovered is not relevant. The OP is clearly legally entitled to half the probate value of the jewels. Of course the solicitor may not want to apply such an unorthodox solution. IMHO the OP should play hard ball on this issue unless the value is trivial.

TBagpuss

SevenOfNine wrote: »

"divide for our respective partners".

Hmm, all I would say to that is I have 2 older brothers & when our 90 year old mum pops her clogs, they don't stand a cat in hell's chance of 'dividing' her jewellery for their 'respective partners'.

Our mum's wedding, engagement & eternity ring, plus a beautiful charm bracelet I remember our dad buying her is all going to be mine because I will treasure the sentimental value of it.

They can of course hurl threats, stamp their feet, whinge, deduct monies from 'my share', whatever.........if they dare!

I think this depends hugely on the relationships. If the partners have only been with your brothers for a short time, that's not unreasonable. However, if they have been in long term relationships with your brothers then they probably also have a relationship with your mum. It's not unreasonable for your brothers to want some of your mum's jewelry, either for their partners or to save for any daughters they may have.

I would want to have some of my mum's stuff if she were to die, but I would also recognise that those thongs have just as much sentimental value to my brother as they do to me, and he has just as much right to want them as I do. And his partner has been a part of our family for nearly 10 years, she has a realtionship with my mum and I would assume that any item of y mum's which went to my brother, and which he then gave to her, would have sentimental value for her, as well as it giving my brother comfort to see her wearing it.

If your brothers don't have a sentimental atttachment to your mum's stuff, or if they are willing to let you keep it, that's fine, but you may want to rethink your position a bit and be aware that they may not see it the same way as you do.

And if you fall out over it then it could result in everything being sold and the sale proceeds divided, so none of you gets the items themselves.

Yorkshireman99

Valuing jewellery at scrap value is often a way of evading IHT. But it does not alter the need to deal with it ethically as far as the beneficiaries are concerned. Having no close relatives when my mother died I simply divided the three most valuable items, necklaces, and gave one to each of my three closest friends wifes. The rest I let them choose. Everyone was happy.

Ganga

When my mam died my sister asked for mams jewellery,this was no problem as myself and both my brothers thought that it should go to the only female sibling,there was nothing of great value but in my opion woman value sentimental items more than men and mams stuff will be passed down to her daughter,my mam would have wanted this to happen.

gettingtheresometime

TBagpuss wrote: »

I think this depends hugely on the relationships. If the partners have only been with your brothers for a short time, that's not unreasonable. However, if they have been in long term relationships with your brothers then they probably also have a relationship with your mum. It's not unreasonable for your brothers to want some of your mum's jewelry, either for their partners or to save for any daughters they may have.

I would want to have some of my mum's stuff if she were to die, but I would also recognise that those thongs have just as much sentimental value to my brother as they do to me, and he has just as much right to want them as I do. And his partner has been a part of our family for nearly 10 years, she has a realtionship with my mum and I would assume that any item of y mum's which went to my brother, and which he then gave to her, would have sentimental value for her, as well as it giving my brother comfort to see her wearing it.

If your brothers don't have a sentimental atttachment to your mum's stuff, or if they are willing to let you keep it, that's fine, but you may want to rethink your position a bit and be aware that they may not see it the same way as you do.

And if you fall out over it then it could result in everything being sold and the sale proceeds divided, so none of you gets the items themselves.

Bagpuss - at the time of MIL's death I'd been married for 10 years & with hubby for 15....hence why I was hurt.


I don't know to this day whether she thought I'd already been given something & as OH never mentioned it, it wasn't really my place to raise the subject.

SevenOfNine

I suppose my brothers could complain to the executor........that would be me! My mum hasn't even named them as well (& they know that). They don't seem to place much sentimental value on HER let alone her jewellery.

I've been married 41 years & when my MiL died I had no expectation of having ANY of her jewellery, I expected it to be given to the only female blood relative (her adult grandaughter) & was quite satisfied when that happened.

My point is sort of, if it has financial value OP may want to fight it out, if it is sentimental value & it appears not as it's required for 'partners', then they may want to choose their battles.

If my brothers want to consult a solicitor & fight over it I don't mind that either, it's not me who will want the estate wrapped up as promptly as possible.

Stealing, yes. Bothered, no.