executor problem
yorkshire
Hi
My father died a few months ago leaving a will with me (son) as a sole
beneficiary. The estate is not complicated and only involves a proporty
and nothing else. There are two executors named in the will. One
executor is willing to apply for probate and the other is not willing
to act, i guess because his doesnt get on with me , even though i have
no problem with him. The solicitors claims that probate can only be be
applied if both executors act jointly. However one of the executors
just will not co-operate. the problem executor claims he wants to
deliberatly put me in a difficult situation as the beneficiary. He
will not even renounce his position. In light of this i have a couple
of questions. Can the other executor just go ahead and apply for
probate whilst stating on the other executor will not act. 2) do we
need a solicitor to go through this application 3) if both exectors
HAVE to apply jointly what can be done to get the uncoperative one to
act. My solicitor haS written to him a few times without reply 4) who
will have to pay solicitor fees because this procedure is taken its time
as the solicitor has written to him a few times (2) and i assume the
bill will be adding up. If the bill comes out of the deceeased astate
can a claim be made against the uncoperative executor as he is not
acting in the best interest of the benificiary. sorry if i have gone on
a bit there.
--
yorkshire
Peter Crosland
The unwilling executor can be taken to court and forced to accept office or
renounce it. He would probably have to pay the costs if he had acted
unreasonably.
The costs of the solicitor acting as executor come out of the estate.
I suggest you ask the solicitor to make one final attempt to get the other
executor to act and failing that commence court action against him. The
prospect of his pocket being hit should concnetrate his mind.
Peter Crosland
yorkshire
Peter Crosland;541684 Wrote:
> My father died a few months ago leaving a will with me (son) as a
>
>
> The unwilling executor can be taken to court and forced to accept
> office or
> renounce it. He would probably have to pay the costs if he had acted
> unreasonably.
>
> The costs of the solicitor acting as executor come out of the estate.
>
> I suggest you ask the solicitor to make one final attempt to get the
> other
> executor to act and failing that commence court action against him. The
>
> prospect of his pocket being hit should concnetrate his mind.
>
> Peter Crosland
Thanks for the relpy.
Still not clear on a few points. The other exector is not the
solicitor. So if the the matter does go to court then where will the
fees be coming from. I assume if i (the benificary) persue the case
into court i will have to pay my own cost. The uncooperative executor
dos not work so will be entitled to some sort of legal aid, so he will
want to drag this out as long as possible. If i am being forced to
carry out these extreme measures ( court case) because of his
unwillingness to act surly there must be something in british law which
stops this from happening. Finally you did not state if the other
executor can just go and apply for probate if the the other is not
willing to act or renounce his position. I just want a quick solution
as this has dragged out for ages. I am in posession of the property,
can the house be rented out before probate is applied.
--
yorkshire
Peter Crosland
It is a civil matter so he will not get legal aid. The costs would come out
of the estate but he would be liable if he has, as you have said, behaved
unreasonably then the court would be likely to award costs against him.
Nevertheless the costs awarded might not cover what it had actually cost the
estate.
>If i am being forced to
> carry out these extreme measures ( court case) because of his
> unwillingness to act surly there must be something in british law which
> stops this from happening.
Going to court in these circumstances is the application of the law.
>Finally you did not state if the other
> executor can just go and apply for probate if the the other is not
> willing to act or renounce his position. I just want a quick solution
> as this has dragged out for ages. I am in posession of the property,
> can the house be rented out before probate is applied.
AFAIK the other executor can apply on his/her own and then it would be up to
the unwilling executor to challenge it. Why have you not pressed the
solicitor to do this?
Peter Crosland
Les Invalides
>
>Peter Crosland;541684 Wrote:
>>
>> The unwilling executor can be taken to court and forced to accept
>> office or
>> renounce it. He would probably have to pay the costs if he had acted
>> unreasonably.
>>
>> The costs of the solicitor acting as executor come out of the estate.
>>
>> I suggest you ask the solicitor to make one final attempt to get the
>> other
>> executor to act and failing that commence court action against him. The
>>
>> prospect of his pocket being hit should concnetrate his mind.
>>
>
>solicitor. So if the the matter does go to court then where will the
>fees be coming from. I assume if i (the benificary) persue the case
>into court i will have to pay my own cost.
You do not need to use a solicitor, just issue a summons yourself.
>The uncooperative executor
>dos not work so will be entitled to some sort of legal aid, so he will
>want to drag this out as long as possible. If i am being forced to
>carry out these extreme measures ( court case) because of his
>unwillingness to act surly there must be something in british law which
>stops this from happening. Finally you did not state if the other
>executor can just go and apply for probate if the the other is not
>willing to act or renounce his position.
No. If there are joint executors, they must both apply for probate. As
Peter explained, there *is* a mechanism to move forward if the other
executor is obstructive, but it is slow. That's the law; both parties
have to have a chance to put their cases.
--
Les Invalides
GB
a) Being an executor is an onerous job, and I can see that this chap might
not want to take on the responsibility or indeed the work, especially if he
has a problem with you personally.
b) He has the option of resigning (or refusing to take on the role). That is
the obvious course for him to take.
c) Neither resigning nor allowing the administration of the estate to
proceed is a real breach of the trust that your late father placed in him.
Do you not know anyone who could bring some moral pressure on him to act
sensibly and honourably? That would undoubtedly be a quicker course for you
than issuing proceedings.
yorkshire
'Neither resigning nor allowing the administration of the estate to
proceed is a real breach of the trust that your late father placed in
him' and 'it is application of the law'. Regarding your two comments
above, not allowing the process to move forward is a loss to me as the
benificary of the estate. Why does the beneficiary have to be forced to
take legal action with cost coming from the estate. I understand it is
the aplication of the law but The executor does not gain or lose
financially if the costs of legal action is taken from the estate
therefore why does the law allow this to happen. i could understand if
there was a dispute between the benificiaries and the argument went to
court. I the beneficary am at a loss because the executor has a
personal grudge against me and he has nothing to lose and i have.
Surely there must be something in British law which stops executor from
doing this before it goes to court to 'waste money from the estate'. How
do i go about proving he is acting unreasonably and is there a time
limit. The estate is not even complicated. I understand it can be a
difficult process but my father has 1 bank account with a few pounds,
no debts, no mortgages, no shares, no business, no body owes him money
he waas just on a state pension. We have lived together all our lives
and i have been responsible for everything before and after his death.
LAstly, as the beneficary of the property which is in question. Can i
let the property and aquire the rent , (even though the house is not
on my name) before probate has been granted. The house is unoccupied
and the condiotion is deteriating because this executor is not willing
to do anything.
--
yorkshire
steve robinson
An executor is appointed by the deseased prior to passing away , the
person appointed may not even be aware that they have been selected .
The cost comes from the estate because this duty was requested by your
late father , why should this person suffer financially because he
feels that he doesnt want to perform this task which he has no
obligation to do anyway
GB
news:xn0fsskh1...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> 'Neither resigning nor allowing the administration of the estate to
>> proceed is a real breach of the trust that your late father placed in
>> him' and 'it is application of the law'. Regarding your two comments
>> above, not allowing the process to move forward is a loss to me as the
>> benificary of the estate. Why does the beneficiary have to be forced
>> to take legal action with cost coming from the estate. I understand
>> it is the aplication of the law but The executor does not gain or lose
>> financially if the costs of legal action is taken from the estate
>> therefore why does the law allow this to happen. i could understand if
>> there was a dispute between the benificiaries and the argument went to
>> court. I the beneficary am at a loss because the executor has a
>> personal grudge against me and he has nothing to lose and i have.
>> Surely there must be something in British law which stops executor
>> from doing this before it goes to court to 'waste money from the
>> estate'. How do i go about proving he is acting unreasonably and is
>> there a time limit. The estate is not even complicated. I understand
>> it can be a difficult process but my father has 1 bank account with a
>> few pounds, no debts, no mortgages, no shares, no business, no body
>> owes him money he waas just on a state pension. We have lived
>> together all our lives and i have been responsible for everything
>> before and after his death.
Well, if the court feels that the executor has acted unreasonably, then he
will have to pay the costs of the proceedings personally. Unfortunately,
there is some friction in the system, and you don't tend to recover all your
costs. If he doesn't wish to be at risk of costs, he can resign as an
executor and leave the other guy to get on with it. As I said, try moral
pressure, but failing that the way the law works in this country is that
proceedings are issued, there are court hearings, and so on, and it costs
money - which hopefully will come out of the non-performing executor's
pocket, not yours or the estate's. That's how the system works. There is no
fairy god-mother out there to right wrongs. However, judges tend to be
rather clever decent people, and if they can they will see justice done.
>>
>> LAstly, as the beneficary of the property which is in question. Can i
>> let the property and aquire the rent , (even though the house is not
>> on my name) before probate has been granted. The house is unoccupied
>> and the condiotion is deteriating because this executor is not willing
>> to do anything.
>
>
> An executor is appointed by the deseased prior to passing away , the
> person appointed may not even be aware that they have been selected .
>
>
> The cost comes from the estate because this duty was requested by your
> late father , why should this person suffer financially because he
> feels that he doesnt want to perform this task which he has no
> obligation to do anyway
>
Because he needs to resign / renounce the executorship. Retaining the
position of executor but not doing the job is unfair.
yorkshire
steve robinson;542841 Wrote:
> yorkshire wrote:
> -
>
> GB;542168 Wrote: -
> I would just add two points:
>
> a) Being an executor is an onerous job, and I can see that this chap
> might
> not want to take on the responsibility or indeed the work,
> especially if he
> has a problem with you personally.
>
> b) He has the option of resigning (or refusing to take on the role).
> That is
> the obvious course for him to take.
>
> c) Neither resigning nor allowing the administration of the estate
> to proceed is a real breach of the trust that your late father
> placed in him.
> Do you not know anyone who could bring some moral pressure on him to
> act
> sensibly and honourably? That would undoubtedly be a quicker course
> for you
>
>
> An executor is appointed by the deseased prior to passing away , the
> person appointed may not even be aware that they have been selected .
>
>
> The cost comes from the estate because this duty was requested by your
> late father , why should this person suffer financially because he
> feels that he doesnt want to perform this task which he has no
> obligation to do anyway
Thanks again Peter. Maybe i am not explaining myself clearly. Yes he
was appointed and OK he does does not have an obligation to act and
certainly he should not have to suffer financial loss because of his
apointment. However if this person does not have an obligation to act
does that mean that he can potentially choose not to serve and not to
renounce for as long as he choosesm WHich means probate is not applied
for and the estate will not be administered. Surely if he does not
which to act then he should renounce his postion and allow the other
executor to get on with his job. He is not doing either. SO my question
was , why is the executor allowed to sit and simply do nothing. SO he
can potentially just sit there and leave the estate where it is. THe
onus is then on the benificiary (myself ) to do something about it i.e
force him to renounce through the courts at a cost. This will bring the
a financial loss to the estate and beneficiary for undue reasons. IS he
simply allowed to do this? . I dont know if i've explained myself
clearly. The uncoperative executor in other words is simply saying 'i
dont have an obligation to act, i wont act, i wont renounce, if you
want what is yours then use yours/estates finances to make me do it
or make me to renounce it. I think this is grossly unfair as he has
nothing to lose. WHy is he allowed to do this.
--
yorkshire
GB
> was appointed and OK he does does not have an obligation to act and
> certainly he should not have to suffer financial loss because of his
> apointment. However if this person does not have an obligation to act
> does that mean that he can potentially choose not to serve and not to
> renounce for as long as he choosesm WHich means probate is not applied
> for and the estate will not be administered. Surely if he does not
> which to act then he should renounce his postion and allow the other
> executor to get on with his job. He is not doing either. SO my question
> was , why is the executor allowed to sit and simply do nothing. SO he
> can potentially just sit there and leave the estate where it is. THe
> onus is then on the benificiary (myself ) to do something about it i.e
> force him to renounce through the courts at a cost. This will bring the
> a financial loss to the estate and beneficiary for undue reasons. IS he
> simply allowed to do this? . I dont know if i've explained myself
> clearly. The uncoperative executor in other words is simply saying 'i
> dont have an obligation to act, i wont act, i wont renounce, if you
> want what is yours then use yours/estates finances to make me do it
> or make me to renounce it. I think this is grossly unfair as he has
> nothing to lose. WHy is he allowed to do this.
You keep asking the same question : 'Why is he allowed to do this?' Well, of
course, he isn't. That's what the courts are for, to sort this type of
problem out. Who else do you think should do it?
somebody
robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes
>yorkshire wrote:
>
[big snip]
>>
>> LAstly, as the beneficary of the property which is in question. Can i
>> let the property and aquire the rent , (even though the house is not
>> on my name) before probate has been granted. The house is unoccupied
>> and the condiotion is deteriating because this executor is not willing
>> to do anything.
>
>
>An executor is appointed by the deseased prior to passing away , the
>person appointed may not even be aware that they have been selected .
>
>
>The cost comes from the estate because this duty was requested by your
>late father , why should this person suffer financially because he
>feels that he doesnt want to perform this task which he has no
>obligation to do anyway
>
Because the unwilling executor could simply sign a form (provided by the
probate office already filled in) which says either "I renounce my
position as executor", or "I reserve my power as executor".
Either of which would allow probate to be granted and the estate to be
settled without his input.
The *impression* I get from the OP is that the person will not do
either, nor act as executor. In this situation probate cannot be granted
and the estate cannot be settled without a court case.
Unless the unwilling executor can come up with a reasonable
reason/excuse for his reticence and the subsequent delay caused, I think
he *should* be liable for any costs.
Hth
Someone
steve robinson
> For the executor to act unreasonably then he would need to assume the
position and duty of such from what the op has said the person named
has refused to accept the position .
You cant resign from a position you have not accepted or be forced to
honour a contract you have not agreed too .
>
> > >
> >> LAstly, as the beneficary of the property which is in question.
> Can i >> let the property and aquire the rent , (even though the
> house is not >> on my name) before probate has been granted. The
> house is unoccupied >> and the condiotion is deteriating because this
> executor is not willing >> to do anything.
> >
> >
> > An executor is appointed by the deseased prior to passing away , the
> > person appointed may not even be aware that they have been selected
> > .
> >
> >
> > The cost comes from the estate because this duty was requested by
> > your late father , why should this person suffer financially
> > because he feels that he doesnt want to perform this task which he
> > has no obligation to do anyway
> >
>
> Because he needs to resign / renounce the executorship. Retaining the
> position of executor but not doing the job is unfair.
As the position was bestowed upon him (possibly without his knowledge)
and not a contractual agreement he really does not have to do anything
at all.
--
steve robinson
The person concerned was nominated ,possibly without his consent .
He is right he has no obligation to act as an executor .
Yes he can choose not to serve , he can choose not to have any dealings
with the estate that is his right .Exersising this right no matter how
inconvienient to the administering of the estate is his perogative and
he should not suffer financially because of this.
Your father chose this person ad its up to your father (in this case
his estate) to amend the situation .
This requires the actions of the court as your father is no longer in a
position to do this , the end result would be the same if your father
was alive there would still be a cost to administer the changes (in
this case solicitors costs)
An executor is not allowed to sit and do nothing however this person
has not accepted the position .
The courts will not force him to renounce the position they will make
an order striking is name out and possibly naming another if someone
else applies . You could apply (amounts to the same thing)
What is the other executor doing about this , he/she does have a duty
to administer the estate and should be dealing with this issue (again
if they have accepted the position or are under contract i.e bank or
solicitor).
--
steve robinson
> In message <xn0fsskh1...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, steve
> robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes
> > yorkshire wrote:
> >
> [big snip]
>
> > >
> > > LAstly, as the beneficary of the property which is in question.
> > > Can i let the property and aquire the rent , (even though the
> > > house is not on my name) before probate has been granted. The
> > > house is unoccupied and the condiotion is deteriating because
> > > this executor is not willing to do anything.
> >
> >
> > An executor is appointed by the deseased prior to passing away , the
> > person appointed may not even be aware that they have been selected
> > .
> >
> >
> > The cost comes from the estate because this duty was requested by
> > your late father , why should this person suffer financially
> > because he feels that he doesnt want to perform this task which he
> > has no obligation to do anyway
> >
>
> Because the unwilling executor could simply sign a form (provided by
> the probate office already filled in) which says either "I renounce
> my position as executor", or "I reserve my power as executor".
>
> Either of which would allow probate to be granted and the estate to
> be settled without his input.
>
> The impression I get from the OP is that the person will not do
> either, nor act as executor. In this situation probate cannot be
> granted and the estate cannot be settled without a court case.
>
> Unless the unwilling executor can come up with a reasonable
> reason/excuse for his reticence and the subsequent delay caused, I
> think he should be liable for any costs.
>
>Why , he is under no contractual obligation to act as executor , he
certainly isnt under any obligation to fill in any forms either
He may be acting like a total arsehole but that certainly isnt ilegal
--
yorkshire
GB;542985 Wrote:
> Thanks again Peter. Maybe i am not explaining myself clearly. Yes he-
> was appointed and OK he does does not have an obligation to act and
> certainly he should not have to suffer financial loss because of his
> apointment. However if this person does not have an obligation to act
> does that mean that he can potentially choose not to serve and not to
> renounce for as long as he choosesm WHich means probate is not
> applied
> for and the estate will not be administered. Surely if he does not
> which to act then he should renounce his postion and allow the other
> executor to get on with his job. He is not doing either. SO my
> question
> was , why is the executor allowed to sit and simply do nothing. SO he
> can potentially just sit there and leave the estate where it is. THe
> onus is then on the benificiary (myself ) to do something about it
> i.e
> force him to renounce through the courts at a cost. This will bring
> the
> a financial loss to the estate and beneficiary for undue reasons. IS
> he
> simply allowed to do this? . I dont know if i've explained myself
> clearly. The uncoperative executor in other words is simply saying 'i
> dont have an obligation to act, i wont act, i wont renounce, if you
> want what is yours then use yours/estates finances to make me do it
> or make me to renounce it. I think this is grossly unfair as he has
>
> You keep asking the same question : 'Why is he allowed to do this?'
> Well, of
> course, he isn't. That's what the courts are for, to sort this type of
>
> problem out. Who else do you think should do it?
Thanks for yor advice guys its been a great deal of help. I think it
would be really good advice for those who leave a will for loved ones
to really be aware what the role of an executor is and what kind of
grief an executor can give the benificiaries especially after they lose
someone really close. It is really important to chose someone who you
can trust 110% and is likely to think 110% in the best interest of the
benificaries. I reckon in a situation like mine if the executor is
being delibratley uncoperative he should be forced to give up his
position at his own cost rather than estates that way he would renounce
or even act even before going to court. In an ideal world an executor
should do the honourable thing and act if he/she wants, and if he/she
doesn't want to act (which they are entitled to) he/she should simply
renounce their positions.
--
yorkshire
steve robinson
As much as you detest the actions of this person , it would be unjust
to expect him to cover your or the estates costs just because he quite
legally refuses to administer an estate , and quite legally refuses to
sign any paperwork to do with the estate .
Look at it from another perspective would you sign any legal paperwork
without seeking a solcitors advice i certainly wouldnt , If this guy
seeks advice from a solicitor on how to deal with not wishing to
administer the estate would you be prepared to pay this cost , after
all as far as you know he never agreed to perform this task .
Realistically its not going to cost you the earth to sought this out ,
its unlikely he will defend any action you take because in doing so he
would be accepting the roll of executor , in doing so e would then have
to adminsiter the estate diligently
--