Return-Path: Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.1]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:20:59 -0400 Received: from VP4SkyDoc@aol.com (4419) by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id kJKHa13734 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:22:38 -0400 (EDT) From: VP4SkyDoc@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:22:37 EDT Subject: Valuation To: lancair.list@olsusa.com X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I have often wondered how such settlements have worked out, for I imagine that airplane construction has contributed to more than one divorce. My condolences. Its seems to me that your plane has a value that is largely sentimental and only minimally related to the cost of materials. If I were King Solomon, I would have both you and your ex submit bids as to what it is worth. Highest bidder pays his/her bid to the other and keeps the plane. Other variations of the same might work too: Highest bidder pays the mean of the two bids, or perhaps open bidding like an auction. While it is true that this is likely to work in your favor in the case of the airplane because of your (probably) greater interest in the object, it will similarly work against you on the items she places at high personal value. Since this idea could be applied to any item, but because I have never heard of anyone doing it, I imagine that the lawyers have a problem with the idea. But it makes sense to me. Probably wont work with the kids though :-) Good Luck Dave Leonard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html