When executor does not talk to one family member

GoodLord

The family Bloggs. Joe senior dies. His wife died some years ago

Family member A is the executor
A does not talk to member B

B does not get any info re what is provided in any will or even know if there was one. No communication except occasional bits from member c who is in the UK

Is A obliged to communicate with B?. Should A have taken on the responsibility knowing she would not talk to B?

Are there rules around being an executor and who enforces them?


If anything is due to B they will probably get is but the questionn is should they be kept informed? Should they have to accept indirect information coming from C i UK. Has the executor duty to keep them up to dats on what is happening.They do not even know if memory cards are being produced and were not told about changes to the headstone except now and then from the UK by another C



http://www.irishwills.ie/wills/executor_responsibilities.html says duties include

"make sure that the spouse/civil partner and children know about their legal right share

make sure the entitled beneficiaries or next of kin get what they are entitled to, and that ownership of property is passed on correctly."

How can an executor who does not talk to one family member do that?

goz83

I suppose they could make sure that B is informed by using C as a line of communication. Not exactly ideal, but if A kept B informed through C, then I wouldn't see an issue. Seems like this is not exactly the case here and that info is being drip fed. I don't know the legalities behind it, that's just my view. Maybe your solicitor can help?

Peregrinus

A's role as executor is to get in the assets of the deceased, and distribute them to those entitled. B's rights as a beneficiary are to receive the assets, or the share of assets, to which he is entitled.

And that's about it, I'm afraid. The rest is not a matter of law, but of human relationships. If the Bloggs family has dysfunctional relationships, that's not a legal problem and there isn't a legal fix to it. A has to talk to B to the extent necessary to inform B about B's entitlement (if any) from the estate. That's all.

GoodLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

A's role as executor is to get in the assets of the deceased, and distribute them to those entitled. B's rights as a beneficiary are to receive the assets, or the share of assets, to which he is entitled.

And that's about it, I'm afraid. The rest is not a matter of law, but of human relationships. If the Bloggs family has dysfunctional relationships, that's not a legal problem and there isn't a legal fix to it. A has to talk to B to the extent necessary to inform B about B's entitlement (if any) from the estate. That's all.

but A does not talk to B at all?

Peregrinus

If B has no entitlement from the estate, A doesn't have to talk to B at all.

If B has an entitlement from the estate, A has to communicate with B to at least this extent; telling B of the nature and extent of his entitlement and any arrangements made about settling it. ("Your grandfather has left you fifty euros plus his collection of garden gnomes. Here's a cheque. I'm having the gnomes delivered to your place on Saturday.")

Of course, A doesn't actually have to talk to B. He can write to him. Or he can get the estate solicitors to write to him.

GoodLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

If B has no entitlement from the estate, A doesn't have to talk to B at all.

If B has an entitlement from the estate, A has to communicate with B to at least this extent; telling B of the nature and extent of his entitlement and any arrangements made about settling it. ("Your grandfather has left you fifty euros plus his collection of garden gnomes. Here's a cheque. I'm having the gnomes delivered to your place on Saturday.")

Of course, A doesn't actually have to talk to B. He can write to him. Or he can get the estate solicitors to write to him.

But what if he does not communicate at all?No talk Noletter. No solicitors letter. B would have an entitlement but has not been told anything. I B want s to know anything he has to ask C to ask A. Can A carry on like that

Is it acceptable if A tells C to tell B
"Your grandfather has left you fifty euros plus his collection of garden gnomes. Here's a cheque. I'm having the gnomes delivered to your place on Saturday." and then sends the cheque to C to send to A.

That is the likely outcome I would guess. I think that is insulting and morally wrong if ot illegal and A should not have taken on the executor role if not prepared to be civil. Joe Bloggs was B's fater too and B should be told what is happening not about money really but about grave headstone being changed etc

seamus

Is B incapable of knocking on A's door and having a civil conversation?

GoodLord

seamus wrote: »

Is B incapable of knocking on A's door and having a civil conversation?

They would not feel welcome. A did not even talk to B at funeral

I do not think B should have to go to A. A took on the executor role and is using the role to exclude B.

It is not about any money but the principle of not being told of any changes to the headstone etc. These would be family decision and B is being excluded

Peregrinus

Legally, what B is entitled to is his fifty euros plus his garden gnomes. If A arranges matters so that B gets these things, B has no (legal) grounds for complaint.

I appreciate that B may be upset that A is treating him with such disdain, but that's not what the probate jurisdiction of the High Court exists to deal with.

Separately, B may be concerned that A isn't, in fact, giving him all that he is entitled to. What if everybody else got their cheques and their garden gnomes weeks ago, and B still hasn't heard anything, directly or indirectly, from A? What if B has got fifty euros plus the gnomes, but he has good reason to think that grandpa has left him rather more? B can write to A, he can instruct solicitors to write to A, and if it comes to that he can take court proceedings to compel A to account for how he has dealt with the estate (though he'll need to show the court some reason for thinking that A hasn't done this). What he can't do is to take court proceedings to compel A to be civil to him.

GoodLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legally, what B is entitled to is his fifty euros plus his garden gnomes. If A arranges matters so that B gets these things, B has no (legal) grounds for complaint.
.

so B is not entitled to be involved in decisions re headstones or know about them? And is telling C to tell B his gnomes will be sent to C to sent to B acceptable. Is he entitled to see will/have confirmation that there are not fifty one euro and fifty two gnomes

Peregrinus

GoodLord wrote: »

so B is not entitled to beinvolved in decisions re headstones or know aboput them?

Legally? No, he isn't. Those are the executor's responsiblity. Grandpa appointed A as the executor. The High Court is not going to second-guess Grandpa and say that B should be involved in these decisions.

GoodLord wrote: »

And is telling C to tell B his gnomes will be sent to C to sent to B aceptable. Is he entitled to see will/have confirmation that there are not fifty one euro and fifty two gnomes

He is not entitled to see the will, though most executors will show it if asked. I don't know what kind of "confirmation" he could have that there are not 51 euro and 52 gnomes; do you envisage auditors going in and counting the gnomes? If he thinks A is not administering the estate properly he can issue court proceedings, but he will need to have some evidence that A is not administering the estate properly in order to have any hope of succeeding. The fact that A doesn't speak to him is not evidence that A is not administering the estate properly.

P. Breathnach

GoodLord wrote: »

... A took on the executor role and is using the role to exclude B.

It is not about any money but the principle of not being told of any changes to the headstone etc. These would be family decision and B is being excluded

A cannot take on the executor role without authority. The will nominates the executor.

The law imposes no duty on executors to keep beneficiaries informed on progress, or even to submit an account when the work is done. The Succession Act seems to have been drafted on the presumption that the executor is a trusted and trustworthy person.

The will itself becomes a public document after probate has been granted, and can be viewed.

The Succession Act does not give beneficiaries many clear rights beyond getting their legacies as soon as is reasonably possible, and it does not give a clear roadmap to an aggrieved beneficiary. Equally, it does not clearly preclude a beneficiary from bringing an action - but I don't see much chance that an action for being uncommunicative or for being rude would achieve anything.

I don't think there is much of a legal issue here. I agree with Peregrinus that it seems to be a family relations issue. And I think that the legal system is generally not the way to address such family problems.

This is key:

If anything is due to B they will probably get i[t] ...

The acceptance by B that the executor will be honest, even if discourteous, suggests to me that there is nothing to bring to a court.

GoodLord

Thanks for the feedback

Peregrinus wrote: »

He is not entitled to see the will, though most executors will show it if asked. I don't know what kind of "confirmation" he could have that there are not 51 euro and 52 gnomes; do you envisage auditors going in and counting the gnomes?

was only an example to illustrate how B does not know how many euro or gnomes. He has to rely on occassional indirect communication from the UK

If he thinks A is not administering the estate properly he can issue court proceedings, but he will need to have some evidence that A is not administering the estate properly in order to have any hope of succeeding. The fact that A doesn't speak to him is not evidence that A is not administering the estate properly

But how could B know either way when he does not know what the will said and when there is no communication how could he get evidence that A is not administering the estate properly -if that were the case


How could he challenge the will for example if he does not know what it says?

GoodLord

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A cannot take on the executor role without authority. The will nominates the executor.

The law imposes no duty on executors to keep beneficiaries informed on progress, or even to submit an account when the work is done. The Succession Act seems to have been drafted on the presumption that the executor is a trusted and trustworthy person.

The will itself becomes a public document after probate has been granted, and can be viewed.

The Succession Act does not give beneficiaries many clear rights beyond getting their legacies as soon as is reasonably possible, and it does not give a clear roadmap to an aggrieved beneficiary. Equally, it does not clearly preclude a beneficiary from bringing an action - but I don't see much chance that an action for being uncommunicative or for being rude would achieve anything.

I don't think there is much of a legal issue here. I agree with Peregrinus that it seems to be a family relations issue. And I think that the legal system is generally not the way to address such family problems.

This is key:

The acceptance by B that the executor will be honest, even if discourteous, suggests to me that there is nothing to bring to a court.

Thanks this came through while i was writing a response to Peregrinus

brian_t

GoodLord wrote: »

so B is not entitled to beinvolved in decisions re headstones or know aboput them?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legally? No, he isn't. Those are the executor's responsiblity.

I know that the executor covers the cost of the headstone as part of the funeral expenses but do they really legally have final say in the inscription.

If the executor was a non-related solicitor, he could over-ride the wishes of the next of kin if he wanted.

Peregrinus

brian_t wrote: »

I know that the executor covers the cost of the headstone as part of the funeral expenses but do they really legally have final say in the inscription.

Yes.

brian_t wrote: »

If the executor was a non-related solicitor, he could over-ride the wishes of the next of kin if he wanted.

Yes. (Though it would be rare that he would do this.)

cobham

Re the gnomes...

I understood that any beneficiary is entitled to view the section of the will relating to themselves but not the full will which becomes a public document once probate is granted.

Peregrinus

cobham wrote: »

Re the gnomes...

I understood that any beneficiary is entitled to view the section of the will relating to themselves but not the full will which becomes a public document once probate is granted.

And probate being granted comes fairly early in the process, not at the end. In general, by the time the assets are being distributed, the will (assuming there is a will) is a public document available to anyone willing to pay the fee to get a copy of the grant of probate.