If we are saying that each PERSON believes they have AT LEAST equal percentage of the worth, then we first look at what each person believed the old man was worth:

**ALBERT:** $14,001,670...which means "equal" to him would be everyone getting $3,500,417.50...

**ERIC:** $14,601,730...which means "equal" to him would be everyone getting $3,650,432.50

**THERESA:** $13,501,335...which means "equal" to her would be everyone getting $3,375,333.75

**SONYA:** $16,002,050...which means "equal" to her would be everyone getting $4,000,512.50

If we use those, we can simply give Sonya the house and all of the belongings...and then divide the remaining $12,000,000 in cash evenly between the rest of the siblings.

To Sonya, she got more than an equal share ($4,002,050) and everyone else got $4,000,000...so she's happy

To Theresa, she and everyone else but Sonya got more than an equal share ($4,000,000) while Sonya only got $1,501,335...so she's happy

To Eric, he and everyone else but Sonya got more than an equal share ($4,000,000) while Sonya only got $2,601,730...so he's happy

To Albert, he and everyone else but Sonya got more than an equal share ($4,000,000) while Sonya only got $2,001,670...so he's happy

Doing this gives everyone the perception that they had a more than equal share of the total worth...

However, from the lawyer's perspective, he would see Sonya getting much less than equal, simply because the value of the house most likely is closer to the average ($2,275,000)...which means with this approach, Sonya would have much less than an equal share...

That's why I'm wondering from whose perspective we are defining "equal".