Executor reserving their rights?

I have appointed Paddy and Mick to be my executors, because I want both Paddy and Mick to do the job, not Paddy or Mick.

Perfectly understandable and acceptable if one of the two won’t or can’t do the job for the other to do it alone.

Does seem strange though that where 2 executors are named in the will that instructions can be given from one and the other is not at least notified, so they can have an input if they are willing and want to do so.
 
Nope.

The executor isn’t “duly appointed” until the Grant of Probate has issued. Until that point, the executor is merely a “named” executor.

The Solicitor owes a duty only to their client. And the Solicitor acts according to the client’s instructions. If the executor “A” client has not instructed the Solicitor to write to named executor “B”, the Solicitor should not so write.

Simple.
 
So in your book who ever gets to the Solicitor first can effectively shut out the other executor?
 
It still does not make sense to me that either exec can effectively remove the other with zero reference to the other.

In my view Exec B in this case has legitimate grounds for complaint re Solicitors actions in failing to write to them.

A professional person would, on my view, at the very least want to make sure there could be no possible implication of miscommunication; and a two line letter to both execs would do exactly that.
 
Thirsty said:
In my view Exec B in this case has legitimate grounds for complaint re Solicitors actions in failing to write to them.
Click to expand...
Why are you blaming the Solicitor? He’s done absolutely nothing wrong.

He cannot unilaterally act and start writing to third parties unless so instructed, even if they are named as an executor in a will . If there is any issue here, it’s between Executor A and Executor B.

Now, the Solicitor in this instance may well have advised Executor A that it might be prudent to keep Executor B in the loop, or not, but we will never know. Executor A may have had good reason to decide to proceed alone.

If I were named as a joint executor in a will and I could stomach the company of my named co-executor, then I would happily be making a joint application with them, share the burden and all that.

But the law allows for executors to “go it alone” without reference to the other executor. According to the Succession Act, any one of two or more executors can apply for probate, or they can do so jointly. So there is nothing to stop either proceeding independently.
 
[Solicitor]... cannot unilaterally act and start writing to third parties unless so instructed, even if they are named as an executor in a will
Click to expand...
That statement makes zero sense to me.

Suppose Smith & Jones Solicitors is advised by surviving (non-exec) family member that Uncle John is dead but they don't have details of his will other than knowing that Smith & Jones hold the original.

One would expect that the first act of said Solicitor is to pull up Uncle John's will and write to the execs named and appointed by Uncle John in that will; however many there might be.
 
Not at all - the fact the Smith & Jones are holding the will does not give them any legal rights to do anything

Any one of the "joint" executors can apply for Grant of Probate without reference to the other "joint" executor
 
@jpd So you don't believe that a prudent and reasonable legal professional would write to the executor(s) having been notified of the death of their client?

They would just sit on their hands and do nothing?
 
Yes. Overseeing the writing of a will and holding it does not entail any obligation (legal or moral) to act in the event of the death of their client.
 
To review, the earlier statement was:
[Solicitor]... cannot unilaterally act (my emphasis) and start writing to third parties unless so instructed, even if they are named as an executor in a will
Click to expand...
To which my response was in the scenario where their client passed away a prudent and reasonable professional would write to the execs having been notified that the family did not have details. So therefore they could "unilaterally act".

It's hard to believe that an estate could end up mouldering for years, or a family end up applying for probate under intestacy rules, when a valid will is sitting in a Solicitors safe, but said Solicitors sit on their hands saying they are not allowed to contact executors.
 
You have strayed way off course here.

The OP’s issue was to do with another executor acting unilaterally to their exclusion. It has been pointed out that this is lawful, indeed envisaged and permitted by the Succession Acts, and that the Solicitor acting for the appointed executor has acted entirely appropriately.

You have brought into the conversation an entirely new issue which has to do with the custody of wills to which completely different legal considerations apply. The law here is per @jpd’s post.

However, a Solicitor who is the custodian of a will, whilst under no obligation to do so, may well think it prudent and reasonable to notify the executors. Many do, once they become aware of a death.

That said, Solicitors do not necessarily peruse the death notices pages daily just in case a client or former client may have died. Usually it’s the beneficiaries or executors who will be proactive and contact the solicitor to establish whether a will exists.

Some wills do end up mouldering for years because either the Solicitor isn’t aware of a death or the beneficiaries aren’t aware of who the testator’s solicitors are who might be in possession of a will.

To bring matters back on topic, where a Solicitor is instructed in the context of the administration of an estate by an executor, he must act in accordance with instructions. If the instructions are not to contact named Executor B, then he must abide by that. Or if the Solicitor thinks Executor B ought to be contacted, he must seek instruction from Executor A and act accordingly.
 
My argument is that a prudent and reasonable legal professional can indeed act unilaterally; the earlier assertion was that they could not.

Extrapolating from that therefore a prudent and reasonable legal professional, in the OPs scenario, would write to both Execs A & B, saying that A has instructed me to proceed with B 'reserved' .

As that did not happen, I believe the OP has legitimate grounds for complaint that Solicitor did not take minimal action to ensure no miscommunication.

How far that complaint might go is another story, but if I was in this situation, I would be writing a letter.

There's any number of issues with our current probate process that need to be addressed, this is clearly another one.
 
The consistent theme in your posts on this topic is that the Solicitor is somehow at fault. He is not.

There are times when a Solicitor can of course act unilaterally, just not in the within context. Imagine if Executor A had not wished for Executor B to be involved in the administration and the Solicitor unilaterally wrote to Executor B (as you would have had the Solicitor do) stating that Executor A was proceeding alone. In these circumstances the Solicitor could land in a world of trouble with Executor A for breach of confidentiality, breach of duty etc. Executor B is free to get their own legal advice.

There are no grounds for complaint, legally, regulatory or ethically. That you believe so is your own prerogative but your belief, with all respect, is incorrect.

As an aside, we don’t actually know in the OP’s scenario that the Solicitor was the custodian of the will.

I’ll finish on this - it does sound that the OP (Executor B) was deliberately sidelined by Executor A, particularly when the original Probate Application form, we are told, contained Executor B’s name. As I stated previously, the issue of contention here is between Executor A and Executor B and Executor A’s behaviour. Not the Solicitor’s.
 
Johnno75 said:
...your belief, with all respect, is incorrect.
Click to expand...
It's entirely reasonable to state that you do not concur with another's belief.

It is not however reasonable to state that another's belief is "wrong".

If we fail to assert our concerns, we will never get any change.
 
Thirsty said:
It's entirely reasonable to state that you do not concur with another's belief.

It is not however reasonable to state that another's belief is "wrong".

If we fail to assert our concerns, we will never get any change.
Click to expand...
Grand so.

You are entirely 100% correct in your beliefs.
 
"After she died we agreed that he would go to the solicitor and initiate the legal work. I gave him some of the necessary documents but it was he who had all the contact with the solicitor. I assumed that a time would come where we would both attend and sign where needed."B

Given what OP has said, it seems to me that there is a fairly mundane explanation.

Brother went to solicitor and said "Sis and I agreed I would tackle the legal stuff".

Solicitor would then have asked if sister intended to renounce. On being told, presumably, "no" solicitor would have said "ok, we will proceed on the basis you have outlined and if your sister decides she wants to be involved, well her rights are fully reserved, so there is no problem there either".

All fairly mundane. A solicitor who said "I can't just take your word, I'll have to write to her" would be accused of making extra work......
 
Thirsty said:
Trust but verify being the key words here.
Click to expand...
But the solicitor does not need to verify here. Nothing has been done to reduce, limit or in any way prejudice her rights at all.That is what it means when her rights are reserved. She can still exercise her rights and the solicitor therefore has no need to verify anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register