I recently went though something very similar involving the probate of my families' estate in Philadelphia.  My mother was a stained glass artist, weaver, and gardener, among many other things.  Her home was full of her artwork and weaves and the 6 acres on which her home was situated rivaled that of an arboretum.

My sister and I valued her personal property at over $50,000.  We could have not been more wrong!  After an estate sale we received a fraction of that amount.

This issue frequently comes up in divorce.  The parties may have spent top dollar on a new flat screen, a dining room set, or tools.  Many people want to value the property based upon the replacement value.  So if one person gets the flat screen, they then owe the other the replacement value for the same, right?  It may sound fair, but that is the wrong answer!!

Just as in my circumstances, the value of personal property in divorce is based upon the fair market value not the replacement value. Judges are required to

(1) Identify the specific real and personal property that may be apportioned between the parties;

(2) Determine the fair market value of the property;

(3) Determine whether both parties have made a material contribution to the acquisition of property and identify the proportionate contribution of each party; and

(4) Decide on the mechanics of the manner in which the property will be distributed.

Rabon v. Rabon, 344 S.E.2d 615, 289 S.C. 49 (S.C. App. 1986)

The key is fair market value:  What a willing buyer will agree to pay to a willing seller.

So that flat screen that cost $2,500 a year ago?  See what a used model is selling for on Facebook Marketplace, and that is your value!  As in all things, we often find it difficult to reconcile our emotional attachment to things with the facts of reality.

Guy Vitetta

Charleston