“I give all of my personal effects and household contents to be divided among my children and/or beneficiaries as my trustee, in their absolute discretion, shall determine.”
Few sentences in a will create more stress for executors than this one, or one of its many close cousins. It is almost always inserted with good intentions. It is meant to provide flexibility and simplicity. It is based on trust.
It also routinely becomes the most contested and destabilizing provision in an otherwise well‑planned estate.
I call it vulture syndrome: a post-death rapid scramble by beneficiaries and/or family members for personal property. It comes under the guise of sentiment, safekeeping or “what mom/dad really wanted.”
For executors, it transforms ordinary household items — stuff, in other words — into professional risk and demands sustained refereeing. Advisors who find themselves calling penalties are in for a rough time.
Why this clause fails executors
The clause provides no guidance on what items are considered personal effects. It says nothing about the timing of distribution, item valuation or order of distribution. It does not specify whether items should be appraised or which beneficiary preferences should be considered. It provides no direction on whether items should go to specific individuals or be divided into distribution lots, auctioned, equalized or deferred.
It assumes rational behaviour at the very moment emotions and irrationality are most likely to prevail. It allows the executor to make discretionary decisions without structure, no matter the interests of children and beneficiaries — each of whom has their own memory, narrative and urgency.
Items are quietly removed “before anything happens to them.” Pressure mounts on the executor to act quickly, yet any action is immediately framed as biased. Delay is interpreted as strategy and neutrality becomes impossible. Instead of administering, executors are left to absorb the conflict and see their integrity and competency questioned.
A familiar case study
Consider a blended‑family estate with substantial financial assets and a professionally drafted will. The executor was one of the adult children, selected because of their financial and legal acumen. The personal effect and household property clause mirrored the language above.
Within days of death, two beneficiaries (one from a first marriage and the other from a second marriage) entered the deceased’s home and removed clothes, artwork, cutlery, dishes, watches and furniture, each asserting verbal promises. Another beneficiary objected and accused the executor of not fulfilling their mandate and enabling unfairness.
The executor did not have an inventory of the personal effects or household contents, and was unsure whether to demand the return of items or formalize what had already occurred. The executor said that he had not been formally appointed, and therefore had no authority to secure the household because the will had not gone through the probate application process.
Individually, the items were modest. Collectively they represented history, status and recognition. The result was nearly two additional years of administration, fractured family relationships, delayed equalization calculations and distributions to beneficiaries and the eventual resignation of an exhausted executor. That left the financial advisor without instruction, authority or a functioning decision‑maker.
The irony is that nothing in this outcome stemmed from poor tax planning or asset structure. It flowed from a single, vague clause and the deceased’s inability to understand that beneficiaries sometimes behave irrationally. They act like vultures.
The overlooked tax dimension
All of this can create a tax problem too.
In Canada, personal‑use property and listed personal property are deemed disposed of at fair market value on death. While many household items are inconsequential, art, collectibles, jewelry, watches, vehicles or boats are not. The executor is responsible for identifying, valuing and reporting these assets, regardless of who has physical possession.
When beneficiaries remove items early, the executor’s ability to establish fair market value erodes. Appraisals become contentious or impossible and estate documentation is incomplete.
But the reporting obligations remain. This exposes the executor to inaccurate terminal tax return or T3 trust filings; reassessments years later based on third‑party information; penalties or interest for underreporting; and personal liability if distributions occurred prematurely.
Once control of an estate asset is lost, administration moves from compliance into negotiation. “If you return the household item, I will ensure that your preferences for such item are factored into the eventual distribution.” This turns property into real exposure.
Warning signs
For financial advisors, personal property issues are often the first visible warning signs of a troubled estate. This is the point at which an executor problem can become a financial advisor problem.
Early disputes frequently signal deeper failure ahead. Advisors may notice distributions slowing without clear explanation; prolonged decision-making; beneficiaries bypassing the executor to seek reassurance or leverage; and meetings shifting from planning to conflict management.
As these tensions persist, advisors are pulled into roles they do not control — managing expectations, explaining delays and absorbing frustration, while lacking authority to resolve the underlying issue. Beneficiaries begin to question neutrality, competence or alignment.
The personal property clause, particularly one granting unstructured absolute discretion, is often the first place that legacy fractures. Handled thoughtfully, it channels emotion into order. Left vague, it invites precisely the conduct executors are least equipped to manage, while leaving them with all the liability.
When stuff is not just stuff, it is usually because the will told people to improvise at the worst possible moment.