The disaster of a poorly written Will

mikeatmse

I'm a backup executor on my cousin's Will. The primary executor has already 'revoked' their commitment. You'll see why. Here's are my points:

My cousin never told the primary executor she was the executor. Neither she nor I read the Will prior to cousin's death. This is a big mistake. Executors should be told and should read the Will prior.

My cousin's Will is simple - too simple - but was drawn up by a solicitor who should have known better. Cousin named multiple charities to get equal portions of the estate. The estate is small, no IHT.

First problem : Cousin gave no provision to cover expenses to executors to sort out estate (other than the default funeral expenses). Nothing to cover property clean up, rehoming of pets, marketing property for sale etc.

Second problem : Charities are ruthless - they want everything. They are run by lawyers and accountants. They will not accept any expenses as legitimate. Turns out executors are PERSONALLY liable for any perceived faults. For example: the Will might say cremation but over the years since they wrote the Will, the person might decide to be buried instead. The charities could insist the executors cover the difference in costs rather than the estate (which they are inheriting). 
 
Third problem : The charities are expecting a percentage of the estate - but who decides how big the estate is (or should be)? Example : executors will need to market and sell the property but if the executor sells the property at price X the charities could say it was under-sold and was worth Y and then sue the executors for the difference. Of course they would only threaten to sue - that has exactly the same effect.

Knowing how ruthless the charities are and how exposed the executors can be, it is very wise to employ some high power and expensive solicitors to act as a go-between between the executor and the charities. This is usually the exact opposite of what the deceased wanted.

Also very important is to file a Section 27 notice in the London Gazette. This protects the executors from 'people coming out of the woodwork' to make a claim on the estate. The executors liability extends beyond the grant of probate.

All this could have been avoided if the Will simply A) did not name any charities at all (put wishes in a separate letter and trust your executor) and never assign percentages of the estate. The size of the estate is indeterminate and specifying a percentage of an unknown number is going to cause problems.

This could be the 'next big scandal'. I am telling everyone I know to remove charities from their Wills and to provide protections for their executors. The online Will writing services, sponsored by charities, use software that default to giving 50% of your estate to them. Sure you can reduce that to zero (and I have now done that on my Will). But an important aspect is to tell your executor that they are named and you must insist that the executor reads the Will (and potentially gets advice).

sevenhills

There is no official definition of what exactly constitutes a reasonable expense during Probate, but there is some general guidance that has been set out in case law. Generally speaking, any expenses that are incurred by the Personal Representative as a result of them properly carrying out their duties should be covered by the Estate.

This would include any costs associated with administering the Estate, such as:

• Funeral expenses
• Costs associated with marketing and selling the property
• Probate Registry Fees
• Fees of any professionals who have been instructed, such as a Probate Specialist, a surveyor or a valuer
• Settling Income or Inheritance Tax that's due with HM Revenue & Customs
• Certain travel expenses
• Postage costs
• House clearance costs
• Gardening and house maintenance

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-jul-sep-2019/what-are-reasonable-expenses-in-probate/

p00hsticks

Are you telling us what you have actually found to be the case or what you fear might happen ? 

This is a topic that crops up from time to time but in my personal experience when executing a will that left residual percentages to several charities I've not found the ones I've had to deal with at all 'ruthless'. Without exception they were understanding, communicated infrequently and tactfully to see how things were progressing (having presumably picked up that they were mentioned in the will as a result of the probate application) and were very grateful when I finally distributed their share of the estate to them. 

I imagine that experiences will vary according to both the charities and sums involved, but I think your post very much describes a worst case scenario and not necessarily what others might find. 

boingy

mikeatmse said:

I'm a backup executor on my cousin's Will. The primary executor has already 'revoked' their commitment. You'll see why. Here's are my points:

My cousin never told the primary executor she was the executor. Neither she nor I read the Will prior to cousin's death. This is a big mistake. Executors should be told and should read the Will prior.

My cousin's Will is simple - too simple - but was drawn up by a solicitor who should have known better. Cousin named multiple charities to get equal portions of the estate. The estate is small, no IHT.

First problem : Cousin gave no provision to cover expenses to executors to sort out estate (other than the default funeral expenses). Nothing to cover property clean up, rehoming of pets, marketing property for sale etc.

Second problem : Charities are ruthless - they want everything. They are run by lawyers and accountants. They will not accept any expenses as legitimate. Turns out executors are PERSONALLY liable for any perceived faults. For example: the Will might say cremation but over the years since they wrote the Will, the person might decide to be buried instead. The charities could insist the executors cover the difference in costs rather than the estate (which they are inheriting). 
 
Third problem : The charities are expecting a percentage of the estate - but who decides how big the estate is (or should be)? Example : executors will need to market and sell the property but if the executor sells the property at price X the charities could say it was under-sold and was worth Y and then sue the executors for the difference. Of course they would only threaten to sue - that has exactly the same effect.

Knowing how ruthless the charities are and how exposed the executors can be, it is very wise to employ some high power and expensive solicitors to act as a go-between between the executor and the charities. This is usually the exact opposite of what the deceased wanted.

Also very important is to file a Section 27 notice in the London Gazette. This protects the executors from 'people coming out of the woodwork' to make a claim on the estate. The executors liability extends beyond the grant of probate.

All this could have been avoided if the Will simply A) did not name any charities at all (put wishes in a separate letter and trust your executor) and never assign percentages of the estate. The size of the estate is indeterminate and specifying a percentage of an unknown number is going to cause problems.

This could be the 'next big scandal'. I am telling everyone I know to remove charities from their Wills and to provide protections for their executors. The online Will writing services, sponsored by charities, use software that default to giving 50% of your estate to them. Sure you can reduce that to zero (and I have now done that on my Will). But an important aspect is to tell your executor that they are named and you must insist that the executor reads the Will (and potentially gets advice).

Have you executed the will? 

Keep_pedalling

A will does not need a clause in regarding executor expenses unless the testator wants their executors to be able to claim for something other than the basics. A lay executor for example cannot claim for their time in winding up an estate but a clause could be included to award a sum of money to cove4 this.

No beneficiary can demand that the executor not charge the estate for the costs they have had to meet in order to wind up an estate, frankly your thread seems to be a rant not relate£ to reality.

Spendless

Is anyone other than charities a beneficiary including yourself? If charities get the lot, I'd be tempted to revoke being executor myself and leave the rest of them to sort between them.

 

Marcon

mikeatmse said:

I'm a backup executor on my cousin's Will. The primary executor has already 'revoked' their commitment. You'll see why. Here's are my points:

My cousin never told the primary executor she was the executor. Neither she nor I read the Will prior to cousin's death. This is a big mistake. Executors should be told and should read the Will prior.

Executors should certainly be consulted about their willingness to take on the role before the testator includes them as such, but they are not entitled to see the will, and nor should they. It could be changed at any time, and the content could cause dissent if the blabbed about what it contained - and for many the temptation would be just too alluring...

You didn't have to act if you preferred not to, so why did you (assuming you did)?

mikeatmse said:

First problem : Cousin gave no provision to cover expenses to executors to sort out estate (other than the default funeral expenses). Nothing to cover property clean up, rehoming of pets, marketing property for sale etc.

No need to specify. Those are all legitimate expenses.

mikeatmse said:

Second problem : Charities are ruthless - they want everything. They are run by lawyers and accountants. They will not accept any expenses as legitimate. Turns out executors are PERSONALLY liable for any perceived faults. For example: the Will might say cremation but over the years since they wrote the Will, the person might decide to be buried instead. The charities could insist the executors cover the difference in costs rather than the estate (which they are inheriting). 
 

Charities also know full well what is and isn't allowed in terms of expenses. If the testator changes their mind but no their will, and the executors follow those later wishes, any challenge is doomed to fail.

mikeatmse said:

 
Third problem : The charities are expecting a percentage of the estate - but who decides how big the estate is (or should be)? Example : executors will need to market and sell the property but if the executor sells the property at price X the charities could say it was under-sold and was worth Y and then sue the executors for the difference. Of course they would only threaten to sue - that has exactly the same effect.

Of course it doesn't have 'exactly the same effect'.  The executors are solely responsible for administering the estate and if they act reasonably, they are well protected. Charities don't have the time or the resources to go around challenging such decisions unless it becomes clear that the executors have acted improperly.

They get their %age of whatever is left when debts have been settled and assets realised.

mikeatmse said:

Knowing how ruthless the charities are and how exposed the executors can be, it is very wise to employ some high power and expensive solicitors to act as a go-between between the executor and the charities. This is usually the exact opposite of what the deceased wanted.

So don't do it.

mikeatmse said:

Also very important is to file a Section 27 notice in the London Gazette. This protects the executors from 'people coming out of the woodwork' to make a claim on the estate. The executors liability extends beyond the grant of probate.

All this could have been avoided if the Will simply A) did not name any charities at all (put wishes in a separate letter and trust your executor) and never assign percentages of the estate. The size of the estate is indeterminate and specifying a percentage of an unknown number is going to cause problems.

This could be the 'next big scandal'. I am telling everyone I know to remove charities from their Wills and to provide protections for their executors. The online Will writing services, sponsored by charities, use software that default to giving 50% of your estate to them. Sure you can reduce that to zero (and I have now done that on my Will). But an important aspect is to tell your executor that they are named and you must insist that the executor reads the Will (and potentially gets advice).

Sounds as if your cousin's solicitor drew up a good, simple will and for some reason you are now in a panic about everything. The vast majority of people manage perfectly well with charities named in their will, either getting a fixed amount or a %age. 

Trying to turn an everyday event into the 'next big scandal' is completely over the top.

Hoenir

No issues with bequests to charities. Totally the reverse. More than grarefull to receive the monies. No quibbles. Why should there be. 

Daniel54

As executors we have had nothing but letters of thanks from the recipient charities

If you wish to protect yourself,then employ as executor a regulated firm of solicitors or accountants to draw up the final estate accounts before distribution,which will then be provided to the beneficiaries

I agree as Marcon says that executors should be asked in advance if they are willing to take on that responsibility.However they have no need or right to see the contents of the will until it comes into force after the date of death.

Maybe depending on how recent the will is,then the solicitors will very likely have meeting notes from their discussions with the testator,which they can communicate to  a named executor. 

Choirgrl

To add to what others have said:

• A section 27 notice is generally recommended - professional Executors (eg a solicitor) will always do one. It’s easy to do and can be charged to the Estate.
• You could contact the charities collectively ( eg one email sent to all of them) and ask them to have one of them to act as the contact point on behalf of them all. This is pretty common when a number of charities are residuary beneficiaries. It will mean you only have to be in touch with one person, and they can then manage the communication and coordination with the others.
• “Who decides how big the Estate is (or should be)” - there’s lots of guidance out there on how to value things for IHT/probate. Assets like cash and shares are straightforward to put a value on. Assets like property are less clear because it depends how much someone is prepared to pay. The beneficiary charities know this, and know that a property won’t necessarily sell for the amount it is initially valued at. 

theoretica

Small estate, divided by multiple charities, do you really think they would expect to find it worth their while giving executors a hard time?