Charitable body as executor

Himoutdoors

If I name a small charitable body as a primary recipient, can I also make them the executor as a quid pro quo.  My solicitor thinks this is very unusual but when I worked for a charity, albeit in a different department, I think we were an executor for somebody's estate.

N.B. As a co-operative, the organisation is technically a registered society and not a registered charity, if this makes any difference.

user1977

Have you checked with the charity whether they'd want to be executor, or have the resources to do the job?

Keep_pedalling

Large organisations will have a legal department who can handle probate, smaller organisations won’t have but making them the executor means they can appoint an executor if their own choice.

The danger is that the small organisation may no longer exist by the time you die. As above check with them, you should always ask any potential executor if they are willing to take on the role before finalising your will.

kayleighali

I am sure there was a thread a couple of years ago where a charity was executor of someone's will and the beneficiary had posted here because the charity was refusing to pay the beneficiaries - I can't remember exactly but I am sure it was something along the lines of the charity was billing the estate for their time so there was no money left for the beneficiaries to be paid. 

Would it be better to name a person or even a solicitor in a pinch? This way they can ensure fair distribution

theoretica

As above, I would expect the charity to appoint a professional to act as solicitor and charge the estate - so maybe not what you mean by quid pro quo.  If the share to the charity is large enough you could state that executor costs come only out of their share (or if they are the only residual beneficiaries).

Malthusian

kayleighali said:

I am sure there was a thread a couple of years ago where a charity was executor of someone's will and the beneficiary had posted here because the charity was refusing to pay the beneficiaries - I can't remember exactly but I am sure it was something along the lines of the charity was billing the estate for their time so there was no money left for the beneficiaries to be paid. 

This is certainly what I would expect to happen if I named a charity as executor. Especially if the charity was bequeathed a specific £ amount (which is normally good practice), meaning they don't pay the legal fees as it comes out of the other (residual) beneficiaries' share. Up to the point there is no residue left.
If you were naming a charity as your sole beneficiary there would be no issue with them being executor, as the charity would be incentivised to keep the legal costs to a minimum.
If I was writing my Will with the intention of leaving, say, a large six-figure sum to charity and a smaller six-figure sum to individuals, I would appoint one of the individuals as executor, in the hope that their share was enough compensation for doing the grunt work. While avoiding the inflation of legal fees that would almost certainly result if I appointed the charity as executor.
If I was writing my Will to leave almost everything to charity and small amounts to individuals, then I would think better of it and leave the whole thing to charity, while making gifts to those individuals in life. Leaving small gifts to individuals in that scenario risks being nothing more than a practical joke.
Either the charity gets appointed as executor in which case the bequests to individuals will almost certainly disappear (making them worse off than if you'd left them nothing in the first place). Or someone has to do a lot of work for a pittance of an inheritance, while being constantly harassed by the charity.

Keep_pedalling

kayleighali said:

I am sure there was a thread a couple of years ago where a charity was executor of someone's will and the beneficiary had posted here because the charity was refusing to pay the beneficiaries - I can't remember exactly but I am sure it was something along the lines of the charity was billing the estate for their time so there was no money left for the beneficiaries to be paid. 

Would it be better to name a person or even a solicitor in a pinch? This way they can ensure fair distribution

I don’t remember that, but that would only happen if a charity was left a large sum and the others were residual beneficiaries as it is the residual estate that the expenses come out of. 

Marcon

Himoutdoors said:

If I name a small charitable body as a primary recipient, can I also make them the executor as a quid pro quo.  My solicitor thinks this is very unusual but when I worked for a charity, albeit in a different department, I think we were an executor for somebody's estate.

N.B. As a co-operative, the organisation is technically a registered society and not a registered charity, if this makes any difference.

Your solicitor is right! The fact you vaguely remember a charity you used to work for might have been an executor for somebody's estate isn't what matters here: it's whether (a) the organisation you plan to name is wiling to do the job and (b) has the resources to do so. Unless you are leaving them a very hefty bequest, and their governing documents permit them to take on such a role (crucial), why on earth would they take on such a responsibility?

Himoutdoors

Thanks everyone for the very detailed feedback, which is really helpful.

Himoutdoors

I have a further question on this subject, which might sway my decision.  If the charity appoints their usual solicitor as executor, a key task would be to transfer a property title from the deceased estate to the charity.  Might the solicitor consider it a conflict of interest to act for both the executor and beneficiary?  Many thanks.

Malthusian

If the charity appoints their usual solicitor as executor

To be pedantic, the charity would still be the executor. The solicitor would be the agent of the executor.

For the solicitor to be the executor, you would need to name them (the individual or the firm) specifically as your executor in your Will.

a key task would be to transfer a property title from the deceased estate to the charity.  Might the solicitor consider it a conflict of interest to act for both the executor and beneficiary?

They aren't, they are acting for the executor. 

When I appointed a conveyancer to handle my house purchase, they were acting for me, not both me and the seller. Just because the job they did happened to also fulfil the objective of the seller doesn't mean they were acting for them.

The beneficiary could in theory hire their own solicitor if they wanted someone to act for them, but it is very unlikely one would be needed just to accept a free gift from an estate.