Need to compensate Executors?
- Thread starter Logo
- Start date
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,946
There's no inherent reason why it should be unremunerated though. It can be a huge burden.
Well if I was an executor I would expect to get some kind of 'interest' to do it except in a case where maybe no-one of a suitable age or of sound mind is benefiting. I have asked a family member to do mine and as I have no current dependencies I will definitely leave them the largest amount allowed prior to tax.
I am the executor of my fathers will.
The estate is to be split evenly between all the kids. I would not expect to get any compensation or extra money from the will.
It might be different if the executor is not a beneficiary.
As usual, stoopid is as stoopid does*. 
If an executor is also a beneficiary, then their bequest is from the estate as a benficiary NOT for their activities as an executor. DOH!
If someone is named as an executor and is NOT named as a beneficiary then legally they are limited to recovering vouched, ligitimate, out-of-pocket expenses.
The job of an executor has 4 principal components:
To ensure all debts owed by the decedant /estate are paid
To identify and gather in all the assets of the estate
To distribute the residual estate according to the wishes of the decedant
To provide a true accounting of all assets and expenditures.
We've covered this 4,097 million times in here. Try searching. There is no scope in an executorship to legitimately remunerate or enrich the exectutor.
*Forrest Gump, Attorney At Law said that I think
If an executor is also a beneficiary, then their bequest is from the estate as a benficiary NOT for their activities as an executor. DOH!If someone is named as an executor and is NOT named as a beneficiary then legally they are limited to recovering vouched, ligitimate, out-of-pocket expenses.
The job of an executor has 4 principal components:
To ensure all debts owed by the decedant /estate are paid
To identify and gather in all the assets of the estate
To distribute the residual estate according to the wishes of the decedant
To provide a true accounting of all assets and expenditures.
We've covered this 4,097 million times in here. Try searching. There is no scope in an executorship to legitimately remunerate or enrich the exectutor.
*Forrest Gump, Attorney At Law said that I think
Last edited:
Yes I agree. My point was that you are a beneficiary and it is in your interest to carry out the work. At no point did I state that they should get any more than non-executors.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,843
My best friend has a role to play in the context of my Will; I’ve stipulated that he should get the Group C threshold or words to that effect.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,946
Claptrap. It's not exactly unknown for some people to hire a trusted professional to act as the executor of their estate after they die. How on earth is remuneration for such services "illegitimate" if provided for in a will?
Jim Stafford
Registered User
- Messages
- 631
Tom is right. Some wills provide for an accountant or solicitor to act as Executor and to charge fees.
The danger with making such a provision is that the Executor might think that he has been invited to a "Mexican all you can eat feast" and charge hefty fees.
Jim Stafford
He's a named beneficiary in the will. He gets whatever is gifted to him in the will as a beneficiary, not because he takes on the work and responsibility of an executor. But I already said that above, I hope it's clear this time.
Claptrap back at ya, my statement is 100% accurate. The specific case you mention is an exceptional one that doesn't arise in the OP's case. The OP is clearly not "a trusted professional" else s/he would never have asked the question, therefore my clear and simple explanation is the correct one.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,843
It’s as clear as mud; no doubt people far smarter than I could ever aspire to be have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Perhaps you could try posting a little less passive-aggressively and read people’s posts properly instead?
I have included the relevant individual as a beneficiary by way of thanks because he has a role to play in the context of the will.
Where a non-blood relative is being asked to assist with the process, I think that the “Group C threshold” or “percentage of Group C threshold” approach is proportionate and reasonable.
Last edited:
Excellent, as you seem to understand the difference between being a named beneficiary and a remunerated executor, my work here is done. My "point" is to avoid muddying the waters for the OP with largely irrelevant special cases. As for the amateur psychology, maybe stick to the day job.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,843
Many thanks.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,946
Except I didn't mention any specific case.
DirectDevil
Registered User
- Messages
- 902
I was an executor for a late parent's will. I was also a beneficiary.
I managed to save my fellow beneficiaries several thousand euros by doing it as a personal application. I was offered an honorarium but declined it as I felt that I had a strict legal duty to all beneficiaries to act in a way that would leave me beyond objective reproach if there was any controversy over the estate. I was thinking of the proverbial clean hands of the law of equity.
I managed to save my fellow beneficiaries several thousand euros by doing it as a personal application. I was offered an honorarium but declined it as I felt that I had a strict legal duty to all beneficiaries to act in a way that would leave me beyond objective reproach if there was any controversy over the estate. I was thinking of the proverbial clean hands of the law of equity.