Engaging professional help for an Executor

hdh74

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

Mojisola

hdh74 said:

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

I have ME and had worn myself out looking after my Dad before he died so didn't try to cope with his estate.  I stayed as executor but employed a solicitor to do the work.

This counts as executor expenses and automatically comes out of the estate; it isn't a cost paid for by the executor.

hdh74

Mojisola said:

hdh74 said:

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

I have ME and had worn myself out looking after my Dad before he died so didn't try to cope with his estate.  I stayed as executor but employed a solicitor to do the work.

This counts as executor expenses and automatically comes out of the estate; it isn't a cost paid for by the executor.

thank you so much, that is really helpful

Mojisola

As you are naming both children as executors, your daughter also has the option to reserve her executorship.

That would allow her sibling to act alone as executor but she could step back in if needed.

MovingForwards

Many people pass it on to solicitors to do the legwork, the payment comes out of the estate. A solicitor can be instructed just to get probate or to get probate, call in all assets, pay debts and distribute the estate. The former is cheaper.

As you are nominating both children, your daughter can have power reserved and your son can do it all when the time comes.

hdh74

Brilliant, thank you

naedanger

hdh74 said:

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

Extremely common requirement, indeed I think most professionally written wills will have wording to permit (non-professional) executors to employ professionals to act as solicitors or agents as they see fit and at the estate's expense.

You could even leave a letter explaining that although you have named them as executors you don't expect them to do any executory work themselves unless they wish to. However you wanted them to have the power to hire or fire any professional help, which would not be so easy if you had named a specific firm in your will. 

Mickey666

hdh74 said:

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

It sounds as if you have already had discussions with DD, which is a very sensible thing to do.

I've always thought it best to appoint the beneficiaries as executors, primarily because it puts them in control.  This control can extend to appointing a solicitor to answer specific questions, do specific bits of work or even to do the whole thing, but the beneficiary remains in control.

If a non-beneficiary (eg solicitor, bank etc) is appointed as executor then the beneficiaries have no control.  If things are too slow, or they don't like what's happening then they can't force a change of solicitor/bank to another or take back control because it's for the executor to decide these things.  They can ask, but they can't demand.  They have no control.

As for costs, I don't think it's necessary to stipulate that any 'professional assistance' costs should be paid by the estate because this is normal practice anyway (as long as the work truly relates to probate).  Indeed, anything to do with probate is paid by the estate before distribution.  This is another reason to nominate beneficiaries as executors, because they will have a vested interest in keeping such costs low.

An example might be house and contents insurance.  It's the executor's responsibility to look after the assets of the estate until distribution and so they would normally arrange home/contents insurance to be paid out of the estate.  The beneficiaries will have a vested interest in arranging the most appropriate insurance, a solicitor/bank might merely wish to put cover in place as soon as possible and would not be too concerned about the cost - regardless of the feelings of the beneficiaries.    A trivial example, perhaps, but the principle is the important thing - control.

So, I'd say definitely appoint your beneficiaries as executors.  They can decide among themselves how best to carry out this responsibility (one might take the lead anyway) and are free to call for advice or any help they might need.  But they would remain in full control of the process.

It's what I've done anyway.

naedanger

Mickey666 said:

hdh74 said:

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

It sounds as if you have already had discussions with DD, which is a very sensible thing to do.

I've always thought it best to appoint the beneficiaries as executors, primarily because it puts them in control.  This control can extend to appointing a solicitor to answer specific questions, do specific bits of work or even to do the whole thing, but the beneficiary remains in control.

If a non-beneficiary (eg solicitor, bank etc) is appointed as executor then the beneficiaries have no control.  If things are too slow, or they don't like what's happening then they can't force a change of solicitor/bank to another or take back control because it's for the executor to decide these things.  They can ask, but they can't demand.  They have no control.

As for costs, I don't think it's necessary to stipulate that any 'professional assistance' costs should be paid by the estate because this is normal practice anyway (as long as the work truly relates to probate).  Indeed, anything to do with probate is paid by the estate before distribution.  This is another reason to nominate beneficiaries as executors, because they will have a vested interest in keeping such costs low.

An example might be house and contents insurance.  It's the executor's responsibility to look after the assets of the estate until distribution and so they would normally arrange home/contents insurance to be paid out of the estate.  The beneficiaries will have a vested interest in arranging the most appropriate insurance, a solicitor/bank might merely wish to put cover in place as soon as possible and would not be too concerned about the cost - regardless of the feelings of the beneficiaries.    A trivial example, perhaps, but the principle is the important thing - control.

So, I'd say definitely appoint your beneficiaries as executors.  They can decide among themselves how best to carry out this responsibility (one might take the lead anyway) and are free to call for advice or any help they might need.  But they would remain in full control of the process.

It's what I've done anyway.

I generally agree for the reasons you have given, provided you totally trust that your beneficiaries will not have significant disputes between themselves.

There are threads on this forum where one beneficiary has been appointed executor and clearly (at least as told by the other beneficiary) acted in their own self interest e.g. moving into a shared property, and refusing to consider the other beneficiary. And other threads where beneficiary executors cannot agree on how the estate should be administered resulting in deadlock. So if you know or suspect different beneficiaries don't get on with each other it may be worth considering appointing a solicitor as your executor.

poppystar

As already said by others the executors can employ professional help but that is not always stress free and may involve travel to and from a solicitors - DD may find doing it herself with her brother works better for her and gives a sense of doing her bit too. Much will depend on complexity of the estate, her relationship with her sibling and how the chronic fatigue particularly affects her. 

Clearing a house after death and keeping it running when unoccupied is another matter and can be more of a challenge with health issues!

Mickey666

naedanger said:

Mickey666 said:

hdh74 said:

DH and I are in the process of preparing to write our will.  We will be having this done professionally. We intend naming our 2 adult children as executors and beneficiaries. However, our DD has Chronic Fatigue syndrome and may find the process more burdensome than she anticipates. She is happy to take on the role but I'm wondering if it is possible that she could engage professional assistance AFTER our deaths, if she does feel the need, and if we can stipulate that the costs are to be charged to the estate before division of the residual assets (or would that happen anyway if this is feasible?)

If anyone knows I would be very grateful. Ta.

It sounds as if you have already had discussions with DD, which is a very sensible thing to do.

I've always thought it best to appoint the beneficiaries as executors, primarily because it puts them in control.  This control can extend to appointing a solicitor to answer specific questions, do specific bits of work or even to do the whole thing, but the beneficiary remains in control.

If a non-beneficiary (eg solicitor, bank etc) is appointed as executor then the beneficiaries have no control.  If things are too slow, or they don't like what's happening then they can't force a change of solicitor/bank to another or take back control because it's for the executor to decide these things.  They can ask, but they can't demand.  They have no control.

As for costs, I don't think it's necessary to stipulate that any 'professional assistance' costs should be paid by the estate because this is normal practice anyway (as long as the work truly relates to probate).  Indeed, anything to do with probate is paid by the estate before distribution.  This is another reason to nominate beneficiaries as executors, because they will have a vested interest in keeping such costs low.

An example might be house and contents insurance.  It's the executor's responsibility to look after the assets of the estate until distribution and so they would normally arrange home/contents insurance to be paid out of the estate.  The beneficiaries will have a vested interest in arranging the most appropriate insurance, a solicitor/bank might merely wish to put cover in place as soon as possible and would not be too concerned about the cost - regardless of the feelings of the beneficiaries.    A trivial example, perhaps, but the principle is the important thing - control.

So, I'd say definitely appoint your beneficiaries as executors.  They can decide among themselves how best to carry out this responsibility (one might take the lead anyway) and are free to call for advice or any help they might need.  But they would remain in full control of the process.

It's what I've done anyway.

I generally agree for the reasons you have given, provided you totally trust that your beneficiaries will not have significant disputes between themselves.

There are threads on this forum where one beneficiary has been appointed executor and clearly (at least as told by the other beneficiary) acted in their own self interest e.g. moving into a shared property, and refusing to consider the other beneficiary. And other threads where beneficiary executors cannot agree on how the estate should be administered resulting in deadlock. So if you know or suspect different beneficiaries don't get on with each other it may be worth considering appointing a solicitor as your executor.

Fair point - wills often seem to bring out the worst in people

I guess the main problems is the distribution and/or valuation of physical assets.  If an estate was entirely cash then it's hard to see how beneficiaries could disagree about the distribution according to the will.

I'm sure I've read somewhere about specifying in your will that if the distribution of physical assets cannot be agreed among the beneficiaries then the will directs that they be sold and the money divided accordingly.

But ultimately, trying to control your beneficiaries from beyond the grave is fairly futile.  Just divide up your estate fairly and let them get on with it.  It's their lives they have to live after yours is over.