When three brothers couldn't agree on what to do with the property their mother left behind.
David (not his real name) came to me frustrated with his two brothers. Their mother had died and left them a condominium. David wanted the property sold so he could receive his share of the proceeds. His brothers didn't.
The youngest brother wanted to live in the condo rent-free. From David's perspective, that wasn't fair. He wanted his share of the inheritance and couldn't understand why his brothers wouldn't simply agree to sell the property.
But this wasn't just a disagreement about real estate. There was a lifetime of family history behind it, including old grievances and hurt feelings among the brothers. The condo may have been the subject of the disagreement, but it wasn't the only thing in the room.
I asked David to step away from the question of whether the condo should be sold and think instead about what he actually wanted. The answer was relatively straightforward: he wanted liquidity and fair value for his one-third interest.
Selling the condo was one way to accomplish that, but it wasn't necessarily the only way. We also spent time considering the situation from his brothers' perspectives. Understanding their perspectives didn't mean agreeing with them, but it might reveal another way for David to get what mattered to him.
There was grief underneath the disagreement as well. Their mother had died, the relationships among the brothers were already strained, and none of them found it particularly easy to talk about what they were feeling. Conversations about the condo quickly became conversations about much more than the condo.
We worked on the language David could use with his brothers and role-played some of the conversations he was likely to have. For David, vulnerability felt like weakness. The question wasn't whether vulnerability was comfortable for David. It was whether his usual approach was working.
The situation was moving toward lawyers. As David became less reactive, he was able to think more clearly about what he actually needed. Selling the condo was still an option, but it was no longer the only option he could see.
Eventually, the oldest brother agreed to buy David's interest in the condo. They used an independent appraisal to establish fair market value. The oldest and youngest brothers then worked out an arrangement that allowed the youngest brother to continue living there.
David got the liquidity and fair value he wanted. His older brother kept the property, his younger brother was able to live there, and the family avoided an unnecessary legal battle and further damage to already strained relationships.
The solution seems obvious in hindsight. Often they do. David had started with a position: the condo needed to be sold. What he actually needed was liquidity and fair value for his share. Once those two things were no longer the same in his mind, other possibilities became visible.
Sometimes the position we take is only one way of getting what we actually need.
Privacy Note: Names, identifying details, places, and certain circumstances have been changed to protect confidentiality. This case is based on an actual engagement and is presented to illustrate the nature of Resolve Advisory's work.