Deathwatches

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

At some point, I'm going to be starting another Keptverse series, and I started wondering....what happens when a master dies? Presumably, you can will your slaves to your heirs, but until the estate is settled, would Commerce want someone in the household to make sure no one tries to run? What do people think?

ETA: To be more specific:

Lord X has been ill for several years, and has been comatose for the past few months. His breathing and heart rate suddenly become very erratic, so his Agent calls the doctor. About two hours later, the monitor flatlines. It's 3 am. What happens next?

Comments

[t-mystery01.livejournal.com]

Interesting!!

[calijirl5150.livejournal.com]

I know, commerce inputs one of those tracking devices like they put in dogs. They "lowjack" em!!!!!!

[angels3.livejournal.com]

*snorts*

Sounds like something they'd do the assholes.

Only you would think of that you nut.

[lapillus]

Hmm, maybe see how leased property is handled since that seems to be the closest analogy in our world. I can see Commerce simply taking back control of the slaves until probate is settled since technically they own them, at least if there are have been any protests filed or if the deceased died intestate. I think that this is not only fear of slaves running but of potential heirs taking slaves away that might prompt this and that it's probably easier/cheaper to bring them into a hostel than plant Commerce slaves in the house to oversee things.

[poisontaster]

That would be my assumption too, with the cost of their keep being charged against the estate after settlement.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Would the size of the estate make a difference? In this case, it would mean disrupting the household for a couple of weeks where stuff wouldn't get done, plus having to resettle ~12-15 people.

With Dylan, it was probably pretty easy, since he was the sole heir. For this fic, though, the master's disinherited his two children, leaving them with just enough of an allowance to keep them out of slavery, and is leaving the rest to his great-nephew; I need to decide what the nephew finds when he shows up to claim his inheritance.

[lapillus]

I'm not sure about that. Perhaps household/body slaves are treated differently from ones involved in the running of business ventures owned by the deceased, since if you take away all workers it would decrease the value of an estate (which presumably the government doesn't want due to tax losses).

[guard-the-cards.livejournal.com]

I would think that in that case it would be like property, you know, you have someone who the will assigns to care for it until the heir can collect. It could also be that commerce sends someone who is trained in that, like one of their slaves, to act as a governing body over the estate.

Because if it was a working estate and the slaves were sent to commerce all that money would be lost, instead Commerce would just take their fees out of the inheritance, or out of the production of their time running it.

[telesilla.livejournal.com]

I would think that one of the things you're required by law to do if you own slaves is keep an up to date inventory registered with Commerce. And yeah, I think that once someone dies, someone from Commerce comes over with the most recent inventory and makes sure everyone's there.

Depending on how programmable the chips are and how much information can be stored on them, it could be that everyone's chip status is changed to some kind of pending status.

[spae.livejournal.com]

My terribly slow story is covering a master's death. Yours will probably be better.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

The master's death is only the prologus--the real story is when his great-nephew shows up to claim the estate, including his 50-year-old former body slave who's used to running the household.

[dairwendan.livejournal.com]

I would think that whoever is named as the executor/executrix of the will would be responsible for the slaves, the same as they are responsible for the other property. They would probably have to submit an inventory of slaves to Commerce within a certain period of time after the death, and they would have to report where each slave went, whether they were inherited or sold. I think that Commerce would only come in if there was a protest filed against the will, if for some reason the exec asked them to, or if the owner died without a will.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

This sounds most likely to me. There's also that situation where an heir might want to liquidate many of the assets of an estate, and that's where Commerce would most likely come in -- since slaves are not sold at auction Like in the bad old days, but through the Commerce system. Definitely the 50 year old would be in danger of being liquidated for cash -- there might also be an opportunity for commerece to act as Appraisors, right, since no one else assigns slaves their value. I do not think that Commerce would automatically own the slaves back -- I must have missed how it is like leasing since it looks more like ownership with reversion to Commerce (I'm not a lawyer and my terms are probably wrong)! That is, Commerce oversees the sale and transfer of slaves, but only owns them when they initially become slaves or when they are between owners. ... right? but in the case of death, the estate would own them until the deed or title of ownership is transferred to whoever inherited them or they are sold back to Commerce for their cash value. I also wonder if there are bidding wars at Commerce. Can buyers like look at a catalog of individuals, or, as it seems, they can only stipulate a type? .... Seems like commerece loses a lot of value when, as with Jensen, a particularly attractive slave with high-profile owners, who should be a "hot" commodity, becomes anonymous in the system. and how often, as in the case with Jeff buying Jensen from Crudup, does this type of direct sale occur? Many questions -- all in a horrifying impersonal tone. Ack.

Slaves as fungible.

[skeptic7.livejournal.com]

In other KeptVerse stories, an heir has inherited slaves. Dylan and Liam both have their parents' slaves. In the Hawaii system, its likely that slaves wouldn't go up for probate as part of an estate since they were owned by the clan as a whole and not by individuals.
But what would really be fun, would be in case of a disputed inheritance, or someone dying intestate, would be for Commerce to just collect all the slaves and only return the equivalence or the monetary value to the heirs. For example if a man died without writing a clear will and his son and his daughter were fighting over the property, Commerce could collect and resell his slaves, and six years later when the legal wrangling finished, return a Black, male, 28 year old trained body slave but not necessarily the original person. Or just the slave's value in cash.
I think that Commerce would have a vested interest in keeping wierd legal schemes down. For example, what if Dylan puts all his money in a trust with the trustees to maintain his house and his slaves for the duration of the slaves' life span with provisions that neither the house nor the slaves be sold? Then Dylan tries a scheme for the slaves to be their own trustees.
A working farm might need the labor of all its slaves to function and someone would have to oversee it. A house could be closed up and the staff kept in Commerce's escrow.

[facetofcathy.livejournal.com]

I think the slaves would be left in place, and no effort would be made to watch them specifically. Culturally, I would think it would be normal for estate owners to have made some sort of arrangement for interim management by a free person.

Crass analogy time: if a farmer dies, it's up to him to have made arrangements for someone to feed the cows, the government doesn't want the job.

But, I think there would be different rules for Body Slaves. Commerce would collect them up and secure them somewhere pending settlement of the estate. I see it as ensuring a sort of situational chastity. The Master isn't there to police their sexuality so Commerce does it, because their value is in their sexuality.

[daughterofelros.livejournal.com]

I think I have a slightly different take-- In the history of large plantations, (Which a large estate in this world would most closely parallel) tehre's the position of an Overseer-- a free man of lower social and economic status than the owner whose duty it is to keep an eye on the slaves.

Perhaps with the settlement of an estate, Commerce would appoint someone to a position, or contract it out to someone who has made a career of performing such a task for the duration of the time it takes to settle.

This type of character leaves you with a number of possibilities-- does his experience make him more understanding and effective, or cause problems because he knows how things 'should be done'?

Does he depart as soon as the heir appears, or stay on until Commerce terminates his contract?

All sorts of oissibilities, with a free person beholden to Commerce, and atempting to work within those constraints-- to which ever extent and point you choose!

My view would be..

[evildrem.livejournal.com]

that if slaves are property then they would be treated the same as any other property of the estate and would be the responsibility of the executors of the deceased's estate until probate had been granted and the wishes of the deceased as set out in the will could be carried out by the executors.

If an owner died intestate (no will) then administrators of his/her estate would be appointed and the whole process takes a lot longer to sort out.

I could imagine that in such circumstances if there were no heirs or surviving relatives etc who wanted to them then it would be possible that all slaves would automatically be returned to Commerce rather like here in the UK, if land is never claimed, or no one is available to inherit then it reverts to the Crown.

[devilc.livejournal.com]

I think that that would be a fantastic idea.

[stewardess.livejournal.com]

I think a "field hand" slave such as Jared would remain in place, because his work is important to the overall value of the estate.

But would a body slave's job really be over when his or her master died? Isn't it likely that, over time, body slaves would acquire traditional "death duties"? A body slave may be expected to do a whole bunch of stuff: laying out the body, arranging the funeral, ordering flowers, cancelling social engagements and magazine subscriptions -- putting his or her master's affairs in order, in short.

The body slave obviously wouldn't be the executor for the estate, but could report to the executor until the estate was settled. The executor would have to notify Commerce of the situation, and would be responsible for "owning" the slave until the estate was settled.

A master could designate, upon his death, that some or all of his slaves be sold, with the proceeds going to his heirs.

The circumstances of slaves after a master died was frequently a legal nightmare in the American south. It was not unusual for heirs to sue each other over slave ownership, and sometimes the eventual settlement would require that the slaves be sold so the proceeds could be divided. A slave's status could remain in limbo for literally years. Sometimes the slave was hired out in the interim, with wages going to the estate.

Manumission complicated matters enormously, since a master would sometimes designate that a slave would be freed upon his/her death, or after 20 years of service. Unsurprisingly, heirs frequently ignored these provisions.

[stewardess.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Now I'm picturing a ritual that has been slowly modernized.

In the old days, body slaves held 48 hour vigils over the dead master, and maybe shaved their hair off in mourning. Since modern burial methods make a 48 hour vigil impossible, and body slaves without hair on their heads have a lower value, the ritual has become almost entirely symbolic. But what would it be? I can imagine the ritual in Hawaii would be vastly different from the rest of the US.

[stewardess.livejournal.com]

*coughs* I swear I am not trying to bunny you into oblivion.

The body slave's death duties would include all the awful crap no one is prepared to deal with. For instance, answering questions such as: should the body be cremated with dentures and glasses or without? It would be interesting to contrast, in the story, the heir's concerns about his massive new wealth, and the old body slave's concerns, such as figuring out what to do with his master's dentures, or sex toys.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

What makes this even more complicated is that there is no body slave. The master's been sick for a while and didn't go out much, if at all. His former body-slave, Viggo, has been running the household, and his main concern is making sure that the new Lord Isaacs doesn't fuck anything up.

*halo*

[stewardess.livejournal.com]

So Viggo is the butler? Then he would presumably take on the role of Chief Mourner Among The Slaves.

I'm basing the scenario on the way slaves/wives were treated in the past when the head of the family died: badly. But I suppose slaves in the keptverse wouldn't be entombed with their master, or burned on his pyre, though. :p

I'm now starting to wonder about pre-Commerce days, and how and when and why government regulation was introduced.

[aecamadi.livejournal.com]

Have you read "Roots" at all? I'm remembering Chicken George "pilfering" his emancipation papers from his dead (or dead drunk?) master's lockbox and running for his life.

[stewardess.livejournal.com]

I read it quite a while ago.

I recently read a new book on Harriet Tubman. The crappy legal mess that affected her family (parents, sisters) is one reason she brought them to freedom. Her mother was legally freed twice, but was still held in bondage.

[aecamadi.livejournal.com]

I need to read a biography on her. Somehow I've missed it.

[stewardess.livejournal.com]

The one I just read is "Harriet Tubman" by Beverly Lowry.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Lots of interesting ideas here.

Because it is complicated, I'd think that one of the requirements of owning slaves would be to have a will. At the very least, you have to clearly dispose of your slaves and/or their monetary value at your death; commerce doesn't care about your house or your money or whatever, but at the very least you have to have a will that deals with your slaves.

There are still going to be disputes, though, because what if an owner dies in debt? It wouldn't have to be enough debt to have put the owner in any danger of being enslaved, but enough that the status of the slaves are in dispute.

Say Joe dies with 5mil in cash, a house worth 2mil, land worth 10mil, slaves worth 6mil, and a debt of 8mil. He leaves the house plus 1mil in cash to his wife, the land plus 2mil cash to his son, and the slaves plus 2mil cash to his daughter. Do all three give up their cash, plus kick in another mil in cash to pay the debt? Do they sell the house and 60% of the land? (Imagine Mom and Bro screaming that they're paying all the debt while Sis walks off with all the slaves.) Even if sis kicks in her 2mil cash to help pay the debt, that's not enough to cover a third of 8mil -- if she doesn't have the money on her own, she has to sell one or more slaves to pay her share of the debt.

Except the way things work now, debts are discharged before property is distributed. So what if Bro is the executor and he sells all the slaves, putting up that 6mil plus 2mil of the cash to pay the debt, then discharges the terms of the will. Sorry, Sis, no slaves for you to inherit, and you only get a little over a mil in cash. Sucks to be you.

Sis: Lawsuit time!

Anyway. [cough] It could definitely be fun. I don't know that Commerce would particularly care, so long as the slaves aren't damaged or otherwise devalued while the disputes go on.

I could see another set of hostels, though -- Probate, right next door to Escrow. :)

In the case of a household that's just a house, I could see it being shut up and the slaves taken to Probate until the executor disposes of them as per the will. In the case of a working estate or a business, there'd have to be some free person there to be responsible anyway, I would think -- a free manager or overseer or supervisor or whatever, since the slaves couldn't be legally responsible for the operation of the business.

I can see Commerce temporarily confiscating unsupervised slaves, much as the SPCA confiscates unsupervised animals. If you have a good reason why they were left alone (and "Granny died and it took us a week to find out and get to her house to fetch Fluffy" is usually considered a good reason) then you'll usually get the animal back, assuming you want it. So if Jeff died, Commerce might confiscate the slaves at the same time the SPCA came for the horses, if there was no free person there to take responsibility while the estate was sorted out.

In the case of a business which is actually a corporation, the corporation doesn't die just because a major stockholder or corporate officer does, so things would just go on as normal. The slaves would still be owned by the corporation and it probably wouldn't make much difference in their day-to-day activities that Bob Boss kicked the bucket, because Mike Boss would step in and likely have them keep on doing whatever. I think most of this would pertain to personal slaves rather than business-owned slaves.

Angie

[fae-lie.livejournal.com]

Interesting set of questions for the set-up.

How would Viggo the butler know that the right person has shown up to take possession? Has to be some sort of handover from the professional handling the estate for the master who died (executors can be lawyers, bankers, etc.), so presumably there would be the possibility of someone telling the slaves what is happening - if they thought about it, and cared enough to do it. And even if the slaves could look after themselves in the same house for the interregnum and were trusted to do so, they would still need to be able to shop for food, and so on, without a master to protect them or provide the money. The slaves could have got used to living without much in the way of orders, too....

What were the slaves told by their master about what would happen? (See http://maculategiraffe.livejournal.com/65056.html.)