Solicitor as executor

CaptainAmerica

madbadrob wrote: »

Some banks have the provisions but their costs can be as high as solicitors.

Unless you or your husband/wife have worked for said bank and fullfill certain criteria then it's all free of charge. ( I fall in to this category )

dzug1

CaptainAmerica wrote: »

Unless you or your husband/wife have worked for said bank and fullfill certain criteria then it's all free of charge. ( I fall in to this category )

Taxable perk??:D

dzug1

ericonabike wrote: »

After reading a number of posts here, and looking back over my own experiences as executor, I am starting to question my belief that using a solicitor as executor is expensive and unnecessary.

I am methodical, literate and well-used to dealing with officialdom, and so had little problem dealing with the affairs of my late parents, as well as helping my brother-in-law do the same for my late sister's estate. Indeed, it was useful therapy, as I felt I was doing something constructive. But it occurred to me at the time how there was effectively little or no oversight of what I was doing.

This has been brought home to me in a recent case where my wife was unexpectedly the beneficiary of a relative's will. The will was old, and other relatives were dismayed that it had not been changed. But the solicitor was legally bound to act upon a valid will, which she has done. If one of the other relatives had been sole executor, what would have prevented them from distributing the estate as they saw fit? My wife had no expectation of an inheritance from the estate, and certainly would not have asked to see the will.

So many other case studies in this forum also hinge on there not being a neutral party - a solicitor - responsible for the distribution of the estate. And so I have now come to the view that there is a very valid reason to appoint a solicitor as executor, even where the role could be taken on by a competent relative. Anyone else agree?

Nothing really other than their own honesty. And quite a few executors seem to misunderstand their role anyway so it's not always pure dishonesty if they do things wrong.

But there's not that much oversight of solicitors either. I would accept that very few are crooked, but they do seem to work in a time warp. An estate that I am - well let's say observing rather than involved in - it took them a month to assign someone to the job, another 6 weeks to send out the first letter to banks, etc, then almost a whole year to apply for probate. Several months down the line I've no evidence that they have started collecting in the assets.

If I'd been doing it I'm pretty confident that without really trying the job would have been complete within 3 months.

Pee

Captain America, I would keep an eye on that. At least one bank has now told former employees that the rules have changed.

CaptainAmerica

Pee wrote: »

Captain America, I would keep an eye on that. At least one bank has now told former employees that the rules have changed.

The rules change for my bank as from 1st Jan 2016......so I must die before then to get it free otherwise I will only get a reduced fee, which is still better than a solicitor.

EnglishMohican

My MIL's estate was handled by a legal executive working for the solicitors who had helped write the will, inevitably naming themselves as one of the executors. He charged the same as a solicitor would and proved totally incompetent.

He failed to allow for MIL's bungalow being rented out (she was in a care home before death) and the tax that that involved, he failed to fill the probate forms in correctly (very unprofessional typeographical errors mostly but errors of fact as well), he failed to divide the money correctly (target was two beneficiaries to share the money equally so he divided the money in two and then took the whole expenses owed to beneficiary A out of beneficiary Bs share and then could not understand what he had done wrong)

He was rude and unpleasant and failed to explain anything - it was up to us to spot his mistakes.

Never allow a solicitor to be named as an executor in a will and if you have a complex case, keep a tight rein on a solicitor who you ask to help you. In simple cases, it is easy enough to do it yourself, though it probably helps if all the family still talk to each other:)

neverdespairgirl

CaptainAmerica wrote: »

Unless you or your husband/wife have worked for said bank and fullfill certain criteria then it's all free of charge. ( I fall in to this category )

My grandparents both appointed Barclays as their executors, because my Grandad worked for the bank, and it was free for both of them as a result (even though my Granny died many years after him).

Result - swift and efficient service by the bank, who had absolutely no reason to drag it out, with no fees to gain.

My Dad found himself named as executor on all his aunts' wills (4 of them!) on the grounds that he was a lawyer and would know what to do. In fact, he's a barrister, and barristers have no training in probate, as it's mostly done by solicitors, and the only barristers who have anything to do with wills get involved when things go wrong and head for the courts (and he's never done anything in that area).

ericonabike

So...numerous cases where solicitors have been seen to make monetary mountains out of testatory molehills. Makes me wonder if there isn't a way of agreeing 'fixed fee' executorship, given the rise in competition between solicitors. Or a fixed percentage of the estate perhaps - then you could choose to go to Bloggs and Co at 1.5% rather than Muggles Ltd who can give you no idea how much they might charge. The current model does seem to be the only area of our lives where we simply hand over a blank cheque to a third party.

madbadrob

ericonabike wrote: »

So...numerous cases where solicitors have been seen to make monetary mountains out of testatory molehills. Makes me wonder if there isn't a way of agreeing 'fixed fee' executorship, given the rise in competition between solicitors. Or a fixed percentage of the estate perhaps - then you could choose to go to Bloggs and Co at 1.5% rather than Muggles Ltd who can give you no idea how much they might charge. The current model does seem to be the only area of our lives where we simply hand over a blank cheque to a third party.

There is you just have to ring around. For example I am at present in my business dealing with a rather complex intestate estate. Solicitors are needed to deal with a caveat that has been placed on the estate and the person who placed the caveat will not remove it even though they have been advised they don't have a complaint. I have today spent 2 hours ringing around all the local firms and managed to get a fixed fee sorted plus a commission upon completion of administration. In reality this is going to cost the estate circa 3k which is still 1k less than the first quote I obtained. Talking to partners in the firm rather than the solicitor is advantageous because you can negotiate the fee and like in my case get them to undercut the lowest figure you have obtained.

Rob

John_Pierpoint

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My grandparents both appointed Barclays as their executors, because my Grandad worked for the bank, and it was free for both of them as a result (even though my Granny died many years after him).

Result - swift and efficient service by the bank, who had absolutely no reason to drag it out, with no fees to gain.

When my mum died, she did have some furnishings with enough value to be worth selling at auction.

So sister and I got couple of auctioneers in to give us an off the cuff valuation and discuss terms.

The auctioneer, who did not get the business (too expensive) but was reasonably well known, having appeared in various BBC programmes about cashing in /profiteering from antiques, confessed:

I love being appointed by banks and just told to clear the place.
They accept my process and have to emotional ties to the lots.

We clear the property and lot what can be sold, at the first fortnightly auction if the lot does not sell the reserve is cut 20% and if it still does not sell it goes into the monthly general sale (ie junk) and if it still does not sell it goes to the tip.

At each stage the commission percentage went up and eventually there could be a disposal fee. He was not keen on private estates grabbing back lots that failed to sell. [I still have a big oak cupboard that is unsellable but just too good to scrap - its in the garage :rotfl:]