Executor Responsibility - Re maintain value of assets

Can anyone explain where this responsibility starts and ends.

This is in relation to a real case I know if where deceased died over 2 years ago, probate passed 3 months ago, nobody paid out yet.

In that time, the value of the estate, largely Property, stocks and shares has been decimated. Probably over 50% of the value of the estate has been lost.

All concerned feel that this has dragged out a considerable length of time. Executors now saying not enough money to cover the legacies.

Any thoughts?

It really just a case of hard luck. There are ways and means to speed an executor up which I presume were not used in this case.

Thanks for the reply, i was referring more to the info on citizensinfo.ie about the duties of an executor

"Duties of Executor/Administrators
Generally, you are obliged to distribute the assets as soon as possible after the death (within a year if possible - you may be sued by the beneficiaries if you do not distribute the estate within a year). This may not be possible if there are legal issues to be decided).
You are under a duty to preserve the assets of the deceased until they are distributed and to protect the assets from devaluation. For example, you should make sure that all assets required to be insured are insured for their market value. "

2 points
1 - it is now over 2 years and no money has been paid out
and
2 - the value of the assets has not been preserved, they have reduced considerably

I was looking for any clarification on "under a duty to preserve the assets of the deceased until they are distributed and to protect the assets from devaluation" line.

How does this statement apply to risky assets like stocks and shares?

Thanks

While the executor does have duties to the beneficaries his/her powers are usually restricted by the terms of the will e.g. If Mr. A dies and in his will leaves all his shares to B and Executor C takes out Probate and transfers the shares to B then he has done all that he was instructed under the will. It is unfair to suggest that C should have sold the shares or insured the shares against a drop in value.

This is a difficult situation and I suppose the question that needs to be answered is why the grant of probate took so long to come through.

Although there is no fixed time-frame for this to happen and any number of issues could have delayed the grant, 21 months is on the high side.

Was the list of assets a simple one, or did assets / deeds / policies / share certificates / folios / titles have to be traced? Did the Revenue delay the grant of probate due to outstanding tax queries?

Until all the assests are identified and valued and probate is granted, the executor is not in a position to gather them up, liquidate them and/ or distribute the assets or the proceeds of sales. Bear in mind the executor cannot dispose of or distribute assets until probate is granted.

The idea of preserving assets refers more to insuring property etc. If an executor left a house uninsured and it burned down then they could be liable as the beneficiaries would only get a site rather than a much more valuable house. The executor would not be liable for market forces pushing prices down.

We don't know here when the probate was started, how complicated it was, how long house for sale etc so it's hard to speculate. I would say not the fault of the executor that market crashed.

If all legacies cannot be paid there are rules as to who gets paid first depending on what the will says and the time of bequests etc. The solicitor can advise on this when the estate is being distributed.

thank you all for the clarification.