Can executor spend my inheritance due to upgrade house before sale?

@Grizzly - you are right. Merely looking at figures for 25 years make me somewhat prejudiced. Similar to yourself. I have to avoid mentioning anything about the way the housing markets are going - maybe you get the drift.

Look up fiduciary duty and let me know what you think - which is what this is about.

In fact if an executor acts as if its his own money, its a perfect definition of fiduciary duty - except that the money isn't his. Paying out to the beneficiaries is ultimately what this is about - and part of that is to maximise the value of the estate. That means examining the circumstances not ignoring them.


Some commentators here should realise that constructive comments are always useful but jibes at commentators - particularly if you happen to be simply disagreeing tends to be why people stop posting here.

WizardDr- Do you imply that the executor carry out a business case analysis on whether he should improve or sell as is. Should he employ a consultant to do this if he himself is not competent. What cost of capital should he use and over what timeframe. What percentage of the estate value should he spend on professional fees and cost of works.
If he picks the wrong option by improving the house and not achieving a bigger price could the beneficiaries have a case for breach of fiduciary duty ?

WizardDr said:

In fact if an executor acts as if its his own money, its a perfect definition of fiduciary duty - except that the money isn't his. Paying out to the beneficiaries is ultimately what this is about - and part of that is to maximise the value of the estate. That means examining the circumstances not ignoring them.

Click to expand...

I disagree. There are lots of people strutting around this town who are incapable of looking after their own money, their banks money, their relatives money etc. I am presently in the position where I have one of these tossers looking after an inheritance of mine. Long before the guy became an executor he was an idiot and a bluffer and he still is!

Well then if he does act the way you say - he can be held liable. The breach of fiduciary duty carries consequences.

You could get him removed.

However - in law its need to be objective (as in would the reasonable person agree) rather than subjective (as in yourself).

I'm a bit puzzled as to what's going on with various posters in the thread. This summarized process is the one I've followed, based on various advices and inputs. Can someone point out where I went wrong?

• Inventory all of the deceased’s assets
• Gather all monies belonging to the deceased or owed to the estate
• Secure and protect the assets pending distribution
• Sell any assets as necessary (property, shares, etc.)
• Pay off debts
• File tax return
• Pay taxes due from estate
• Distribute the estate

Thanks

mathepac said:

I'm a bit puzzled as to what's going on with various posters in the thread. This summarized process is the one I've followed, based on various advices and inputs. Can someone point out where I went wrong?

Click to expand...

I agree with you mathpac, some people on this thread are making things way too complicated.

WizardDr said:

Well then if he does act the way you say - he can be held liable. The breach of fiduciary duty carries consequences.

You could get him removed.

.

Click to expand...

Right so, can you list some of these cases where executors have been removed? I imagine that is would be a very costly and idiotic exercise. the power and rights of a testator to appoint an executor of their own choosing is fairly enshired in law and will not be taken away lightly.

Where is your proof that executors achieve bad selling prices. Why would executors do this in any case, in most situations they are also beneficiaries.

1.
The Supreme Court in Dunne v Heffernan [1997] 3 I.R. 431 has held that “...once an executor has been appointed, and proven a will and had thus accepted the duty of administrating a testator's estates, her or she could be removed pursuant to s. 26, subsection 2 of the Act of 1965 only if there were serious grounds or weighty reasons for overruling the wishes of the testator. Serious misconduct and/or serious special circumstances on the part of the  executor would be required in order to justify such a drastic step. The appointment of a new  executor pursuant to s. 27 subsection 4 of the Act of 1965 was not justified merely because one of the beneficiaries felt frustrated or excluded from her legitimate concerns..."

As for your comment on idiotic exercise - could you just deal with the debate as opposed to opining on others' contributions that you don't particularly agree with or is that a major task?

2. What standard of proof do you want - beyond reasonable doubt or on balance of probabilities? Seeing as you are conducting a trial.

Most things in the property market are anecdotal. Many executors would sell the house without seeing as to whether there was an opportunity to increase the sale value by some form of renovation. On the reverse are you suggesting that executors therefore get good value? The tone of some of the contributions was that how outrageous it was that anybody had the audacity to suggest that the renovations be considered.

The point that was raised earlier was did the Executor have the power to spend money on renovating the house. HE HAS.

Some of you seem to have forgotten that all that was said was that the executor should investigate the matter as opposed to closing his mind to it. Most might feel that any renovation plan would be risky and conclude that it would not be in the interests of the beneficiaries to proceed - and that would be fine. That means its been considered.



And none of you seemed to comment on fiduciary duty.

WizardDr said:

That means its been considered.

Click to expand...

I think the fear is that when it is considered the executor will carry on regardless.

WizardDr said:

However - in law its need to be objective (as in would the reasonable person agree) rather than subjective (as in yourself).

Click to expand...

The subjective view was the executor was an idiot and bluffer. Maybe this is a reasonable and common viewpoint held by many people.