Dispute between executors over estate administration

This is a common and sometimes very difficult situation. Here is how the law and practice in England and Wales deal with it.

The basic legal position:

Where a will appoints more than one executor, those executors must generally act jointly and unanimously in administering the estate. No single executor has the right to override the other or act unilaterally on major decisions, unless the will specifically grants one executor particular authority.

This means that in principle, both executors need to agree on matters such as selling property, distributing assets, settling debts, and making interim decisions about the management of estate assets.

What happens when they cannot agree:

1. Informal discussion and compromise. The first and most obvious step is for the executors to try to resolve their disagreement between themselves, possibly with help from the solicitor handling the estate if one is instructed. Most disagreements arise from misunderstanding or different priorities rather than genuine bad faith.

2. Mediation. If direct discussion fails, mediation can be a cost-effective way of resolving disputes. A neutral mediator can help the executors reach a practical agreement without court involvement.

3. Application to the court. If informal resolution is not possible, either executor can apply to the court under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 or under the court's inherent jurisdiction for directions on how to proceed. The Chancery Division of the High Court or, in lower-value estates, the County Court can give directions on specific issues such as whether a property should be sold, how assets should be distributed, or how a disagreement on interpretation of the will should be resolved.

4. Removal of an executor. In serious cases, the court has the power under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove an executor and substitute another person. The court will only do this where it is necessary for the proper administration of the estate, for example where an executor is acting in bad faith, is obstructive, has a serious conflict of interest, or is simply incapable of carrying out the role. Mere disagreement on its own is usually not enough to justify removal unless it is paralysing the administration of the estate.

5. Passing over an executor. If a grant of probate has not yet been issued, the court can pass over a named executor under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 if there are special circumstances making it desirable to appoint someone else.

Important practical points:

Where one executor is blocking reasonable progress without good reason, the other executor should keep a clear written record of all communications, proposals, and responses. This evidence will be important if a court application becomes necessary.

An executor who unreasonably causes delay or obstruction can be held personally liable for costs and losses to the estate, including the costs of any court application needed to break the deadlock.

Beneficiaries who are affected by an executor dispute also have standing to apply to the court for directions or for the removal of one or both executors if the estate is being mismanaged or unreasonably delayed.

If one executor has obtained a grant of probate, the other executor retains the right to take out a grant at any time, which is sometimes called "power reserved." That executor can step in if the acting executor is not performing properly.

It is also worth noting that executors owe fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. This means they must act in the best interests of the estate and the beneficiaries, not in their own personal interests. A disagreement motivated by self-interest is likely to be viewed very unfavourably by the court.

Costs:

Court applications in estate disputes can be expensive, and costs may be ordered against the party who acted unreasonably. In some cases costs are paid from the estate, but this reduces what is available for beneficiaries and the court may order an obstructive executor to bear costs personally.

The most sensible approach:

In most cases, the best approach is to start by trying to resolve the disagreement through communication, then consider mediation, and only turn to the court as a last resort. If you are involved in such a dispute, documenting everything carefully from the outset will put you in the strongest possible position if matters do escalate.

If you can share more detail about the nature of the disagreement, I can give more targeted guidance on the best approach.