Concerns over brother as an executor of dad's will

W1nifred

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

You said you were getting a will-writing firm to the house. Please be aware that anyone can call themselves a will-writer, so this person may not be a qualified solicitor. I wouldn't recommend anything but the simplest of wills in such a situation: mirror wills should do the job.

Also be aware the will-writer may offer a similar line to your brother: "it's a responsible job, you need to get it right," leading to the conclusion "you should appoint professional executors and we're ideally placed to do it ...." for which they will charge an appropriate fee ...

Thank you Savvy_Sue and TBagpuss, I will check to see whether the will writer we were recommended is also a solicitor.

W1nifred

My mum said she now wants my older brother and my sister to be the executors, and my sister (the oldest of the five siblings) had told me earlier this week that she was happy for just my older brother and another brother to be the executors.

I told her I had reservations for my older brother as he hasn't done much if anything to support mum and dad over the past few years, and I didn't trust him with handling the finances. My sister told me it's just as well he hasn't involved about health and care decisions - as there probably would've been conflicts/disagreements amongst us siblings if he had been involved.

I also told my sister that I've found online advice to choose executors who are less likely to have conflicts, and both my brothers have had arguments in the past. She asked me if I would be happy if she was also an executor, (potentially to keep the peace), and I said I wouldn't be 'happy' but it would be preferable to having just the two brothers as executors.

I have since spoken to my mum who said she would prefer myself and three of my other siblings (as identified above) to be the executors of my parents wills, but I'm thinking this might be a potential problem for when we eventually sell the house - as there may well be disagreements re: when and how to sell the house. My mum seemed to think it would be better to leave my older brother and sister with the responsibility of selling the house, and then sharing the money out between the five children.

However, what happens if we end up as being 4 executors who each have their own idea as to how to sell the house - what happens then? For example, my older brother came up with the hair brained scheme a couple of years ago to get each of us to put in tens of thousands of pounds each to demolish the existing detached house, and to rebuild it and then sell it on for a 'premium' price.

What happens if he argues the toss again re: what we do with the house - and maybe that's why he was first to put his hat in as an executor!?

Savvy_Sue

the ideal IMO is to have two executors who won't fall out, but equally, the ideal is to have siblings who won't try to interfere with what those two executors decide ...

The problem with having four is that you might still face a deadlock situation. If there's going to be 'trouble', then having three who can at least take a vote on anything contentious might be sensible. As long as the one who's been outvoted pipes down ... and either stands down (renounces) or agrees not to disagree ...

But the more you have, the more signatures you're going to need on the final document. I'm not sure if you all have to swear in the same place these days, that's another reason not to have too many.

And if your brother comes up with a hare-brained scheme that requires a financial contribution from you, you just say 'no'.

As it happens, one of my siblings suggested we might have accepted too low an offer on the house and was 'wondering' whether we should re-market it. I just smiled sweetly and asked who was going to take that responsibility? Because neither I nor my co-executor had any stomach for it: we were astonished and grateful that it was snapped up so quickly as it had the potential to be a difficult house to sell.

Mojisola

When it's likely that lay executors won't be able to work together to manage the estate, it can be worth appointing a trusted solicitor to do the job. It will cost more in money but save stress, anxiety and family rows.

Malthusian

Mojisola wrote: »

When it's likely that lay executors won't be able to work together to manage the estate, it can be worth appointing a trusted solicitor to do the job. It will cost more in money but save stress, anxiety and family rows.

...and potentially save money if the lay executors fall out and are so intransigent that they end up hiring solicitors and going to court anyway.

I have since spoken to my mum who said she would prefer myself and three of my other siblings (as identified above) to be the executors of my parents wills, but I'm thinking this might be a potential problem for when we eventually sell the house - as there may well be disagreements re: when and how to sell the house. My mum seemed to think it would be better to leave my older brother and sister with the responsibility of selling the house, and then sharing the money out between the five children.

Which does she want - four executors or two?

The only thing appointing four executors achieves is to allow mum to wash her hands of the decision of whom to leave in charge, and let the siblings thrash it out when she's gone. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Being an executor is a thankless, unrewarding, powerless job (the Will makes all the important decisions) and anyone who lobbies to be given the job should be regarded with suspicion. Especially if they've previously come up with hare brained schemes involving other people's assets.

konark

Malthusian wrote: »

..
Being an executor is a thankless, unrewarding, powerless job (the Will makes all the important decisions) and anyone who lobbies to be given the job should be regarded with suspicion. Especially if they've previously come up with hare brained schemes involving other people's assets.

Absolutely, and I think the OP is already suspicious of this.

elsien

There's another threads on here somewhere where 4 executors have hiit deadlock. Maybe OPs mum should have a read.

The_Old_Bag

All very well advising people to chose someone they 'Trust' as their Executor, or to chose 2 people who 'get along' as Joint Executors.... but it has been my 'life' experience that where money is concerned - you can trust no one.
How can we anticipate how a best friend or cousin will behave when given control of somebody else's money and estate, by being named Joint / Executor? For all we know they may already be stealing from their employer or just not had the opportunity before.
The Executor in my particular case refused to answer questions, refused to provide evidence and refused to show primary financial documents.
As a beneficiary I was advised I had the right to ask the Executor to see estate figures and accounts. But was also advised the Executor had the right to say No.
So in practice, I have absolutely no rights.
From my experience, 'The Law' gives Beneficiaries no protection at all. And therefore gives the Testator no protection..... despite them having paid to have a legal document (Will) drawn up which supposedly does protect their intentions..

'The Law' has created a system, and actively encourage / brainwash the general public into paying solicitors to write wills because they believe this will guarantee that what they want to happen to their estate after they die, will actually happen.  
When the truth seems to be, there is no guarantee that their money will go to the people they want to have it.
If an Executor decides to empty all the accounts .......... which 'arm of the law' is going to stop them?
Which 'arm of the law' is going to get that money back?
Which 'arm of the law' is going to make beneficiaries whole again?
From what I have been advised - None.
No one will do anything.
It will be up to the Beneficiaries to try to get back their inheritance.... with no guarantee of success.
So in effect, they could have lost all their inheritance AND lost a few hundred thousand in legal bills....... 
IMO - the only people benefiting from the current legal system - are those people who make a living from the current legal system.

warby68

With the potential for distrust and difference of opinion, I would go with appointing solicitors as executors. Yes there is a cost but probably much less than a significant dispute between siblings and it takes the pressure off mum to decide and is a fairly neutral choice. This situation seems like there is almost guaranteed strife if the older brother is not chosen and the other siblings are not overly keen to work with him. 4 executors having to agree sounds a potential nightmare and what about the 5th who is left out (I think there were 5)?
I know this is a money saving site but the bigger picture sometimes lowers this as a priority.

Keep_pedalling

The_Old_Bag said:

All very well advising people to chose someone they 'Trust' as their Executor, or to chose 2 people who 'get along' as Joint Executors.... but it has been my 'life' experience that where money is concerned - you can trust no one.
How can we anticipate how a best friend or cousin will behave when given control of somebody else's money and estate, by being named Joint / Executor? For all we know they may already be stealing from their employer or just not had the opportunity before.
The Executor in my particular case refused to answer questions, refused to provide evidence and refused to show primary financial documents.
As a beneficiary I was advised I had the right to ask the Executor to see estate figures and accounts. But was also advised the Executor had the right to say No.
So in practice, I have absolutely no rights.
From my experience, 'The Law' gives Beneficiaries no protection at all. And therefore gives the Testator no protection..... despite them having paid to have a legal document (Will) drawn up which supposedly does protect their intentions..

'The Law' has created a system, and actively encourage / brainwash the general public into paying solicitors to write wills because they believe this will guarantee that what they want to happen to their estate after they die, will actually happen.  
When the truth seems to be, there is no guarantee that their money will go to the people they want to have it.
If an Executor decides to empty all the accounts .......... which 'arm of the law' is going to stop them?
Which 'arm of the law' is going to get that money back?
Which 'arm of the law' is going to make beneficiaries whole again?
From what I have been advised - None.
No one will do anything.
It will be up to the Beneficiaries to try to get back their inheritance.... with no guarantee of success.
So in effect, they could have lost all their inheritance AND lost a few hundred thousand in legal bills....... 
IMO - the only people benefiting from the current legal system - are those people who make a living from the current legal system.

Protection against dishonest executors is not the reason we almost always advise getting a professionally drawn up will on this board. It protects your beneficiaries being disinherited by a bungled invalid will, or failing to include important what if clauses in the will.

Despite your unfortunate experience, most of us do have people we can trust to execute our wills honestly, but if you don’t then you have the option of appointing a professional to do it if the estate is of reasonable size.

As with powers of attorney the system does run on trust and it can be difficult to prove an executor or attorney has acted dishonestly, however I don’t see any real alternative that does not make things more difficult and expensive for the vast majority of estates that are wound up without problems and without unnecessary legal expense.