Engaging professional help for an Executor

naedanger

Mickey666 said:

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.

There is no end of ways in which a bad executor can cause difficulties in practice for many estates.

The problem is the remedy is to take civil action against the executor and that can be very difficult for many people with limited resources. So even taking your example of an estate that is totally invested in cash, what happens if a beneficiary suspects the executor has syphoned off some of the money for themselves? The question is rhetorical, I am not saying there is no solution but rather the situation can be very difficult for the other beneficiaries to tackle in practice.

And in practice most estates have physical assets where the scope for trouble is significantly greater e.g. an executor taking a very long time to sell an asset (e.g. by over valuing it) while enjoying the use of it themselves meantime.

That said, for most estates I agree appointing the main beneficiary as executor is the best option. (Maybe less so if you have children from more than one partner, or know some of your children are not on good terms with others etc.)

hdh74

Thanks for all the extra points to consider.  Our residence would be unsuitable for either or our AC to live in for different reasons so I know they would both be keen to sell it promptly. Nor do I have any trust issues with them being executors. But all good to consider.

Mojisola

hdh74 said:

Thanks for all the extra points to consider.  Our residence would be unsuitable for either or our AC to live in for different reasons so I know they would both be keen to sell it promptly.

As a way of future-proofing your will, it's best not to specify a property.  You might sell this one and own another by the time you die.

Rather than saying that your children will inherit the property, lump it all in with the estate (everything to be sold and the money distributed).