It was an exceptionally close family with the three sons deeply attached to each other. Other families fell out over property but the parents were convinced that this could never take place with their children. The boys were too decent and the ties were too strong. In the course of time, the father died and his will was read. He had taken great care to be totally fair and treat all three sons equally. Or so he thought. In the belief that his eldest son would look after his mother, he left him the family house. The other two sons were compensated with money, the amounts being exactly one third each of the value of the house. However, this was based on the value of the house when he made the will, which was several years earlier. It had since appreciated considerably, and this now proved to be the cause for acrimony. The younger sons felt that their older brother had the lion’s share of their father’s estate. And sadly, and predictably, that was the end of the close relationship between the brothers.

Then there is the story of two sisters who jointly inherited the parental home. Nobody could argue that there had been any discrimination between them yet at the end of the day, they were not on speaking terms. While the house had sentimental value for one sister, the other viewed it as a commercial asset. As a consequence, one sister refused to sell. The other, stymied in her efforts to raise the money that she had banked on, found it impossible to forgive her sister.

Are such cases unusual? Not at all. It is almost axiomatic that where property is involved, there will be trouble. Stories about families being torn asunder and vicious litigation of property disputes are legion. The veneer is torn off the most civilised and conciliatory of people when the question of inheritance enters the picture. The motivations are many — greed, envy, a sense of justice, bitterness and hurt, sentimental attachments, forgotten rivalries. But whatever the reasons, the fact remains that what we see over and over again is that probate comes before probity.

So what are parents to do if they want to hold their families together after they are dead and gone? Translate everything into cold, hard cash in order to eliminate any perceived sentiment or discrimination, and then leave this money to be divided equally between the heirs? Or spend everything so that there is virtually nothing to leave?

Or give what you have in your lifetime to the people who stand to inherit from you? This has its advantages. The family cannot fight over your legacy while you are alive, and are unlikely to do so after you are gone. There is also a practical consideration to this solution. With people living so much longer than they used to, the ‘heirs’ can receive their ‘inheritance’ at a stage when they most need it, rather than when they are past the peak of their expenditure. But even this has its pitfalls. With parents giving away what they have to their children, they put themselves in a position of dependency that is hardly pleasant or desirable.

So, to repeat the question, what can be done? I confess that I do not know the answer. Do you?