Serious delay in administering an estate can justify intervention. It does not necessarily mean that an executor has acted dishonestly.
James was appointed as the sole executor of his father’s estate.
On paper, the administration was relatively conventional. There was a house to sell, several investment accounts, personal possessions and some tax issues to resolve.
Eighteen months after the death, however, relatively little appeared to have happened.
The beneficiaries had received almost no meaningful information. The property remained unsold. Requests for estate accounts went unanswered and correspondence was increasingly ignored.
By the time we became involved, the beneficiaries had lost confidence in James. They wanted him removed as executor.
There were legitimate reasons for concern. An executor cannot simply accept the role and then indefinitely fail to administer the estate.
However, before considering removal proceedings, we tried to establish why the administration had stalled.
The explanation was considerably less sinister than the beneficiaries had feared.
James had never administered an estate before. He had struggled with the paperwork following his father’s death and became increasingly concerned about making a mistake. Tax correspondence went unanswered. He did not understand some of the information requested by financial institutions and became overwhelmed by the process.
Eventually, avoiding the administration became easier than dealing with it.
That did not excuse the delay. It did, however, affect how the problem could sensibly be resolved.
Was removal really necessary?
An application could have been made asking the court to remove James and appoint somebody else.
That would have involved proceedings, evidence, costs and further delay.
More importantly, James was not trying to retain estate assets or disadvantage the beneficiaries. He accepted that the administration needed to progress and was willing to accept help.
An alternative solution was therefore explored.
Professional assistance was introduced to complete the outstanding administration. James provided the necessary documentation and agreed to a timetable. The beneficiaries received an explanation of the work still required and regular updates thereafter.
The estate was ultimately administered without an application to remove him.
What legal issues arose?
Executor disputes of this kind may involve:
- Delay in administering an estate.
- The duties owed by personal representatives.
- Beneficiaries’ entitlement to information and estate accounts.
- Applications to remove or replace an executor.
- The costs and proportionality of court proceedings.
- Alternative ways of getting an administration moving again.
What can we learn?
When an executor stops dealing with an estate, beneficiaries understandably become suspicious.
Sometimes that suspicion is justified.
But incompetence, grief, inexperience and simple avoidance can produce many of the same outward signs as misconduct.
Understanding why an administration has stalled can therefore be as important as identifying the legal remedy available.
Removal proceedings remain an important option where an executor cannot or will not administer an estate properly. They should not necessarily be the first option where the same practical objective can be achieved more quickly and proportionately.
Concerned about delays in administering an estate?
If an executor is failing to progress an estate, not responding to requests for information, or you are concerned about how the administration is being handled, we can help you understand your position and the options available.
Contact our contentious probate solicitors about your circumstances and the steps that may be available to move the administration forward.
