Renouncing Executership

NewClareman

If a named executer carries out an action, specified in a valid will as an executers responsibility, does this limit the ability of said person to renounce executership?
For example, if a will states that "my (named) executers shall organise my funeral and all activities relating to my demise". If one of the named executers then organises the funeral are they now prohibited from renouncing executership?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058411913/renouncing-executership

It sounds a peculiar thing to do. If someone is minded not to act as an executor, they should tell the testator before she dies so that the can appoint another executor.

NewClareman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123493585#Comment_123493585

Of course that particular example would be peculiar, but what I am really interested in is the scope of what is/could be considered intermeddling. Depending on the estate, the role of executer could be demanding and there could be any number of valid reasons why someone could decide to reject the role. The question then arises as to whether someone could inadvertently commit themselves to the role and typical examples of how this might happen.
Another example would be be that the nominated executer had no knowledge of the size/complexity of an estate and, having discovered this, did not want to proceed as executer. Would reading the will, and assessing the scope of the work, be considered intermeddling?

Peregrinus

The executor named in the will can decline to act, in which case some other person — usually another beneficiary with an interest in getting the estate administered — can step up and get what's called a "grant of administration with will annexed". They then become an administrator, not an executor, but it's effectively the same role.

If the nominated executor who declined to accept has already taken some executor-like steps before they decided not to get a gramnt, yes, they are at risk of being accused of intermeddling. But if what they have done was reasonable and proper — like organising the funeral — its very, very unlikely that they'll actually be found to have any liability.

If you think about it, organising a funeral is something that's almost invariably done before any grant of probate or grant of administration has been obtained, and it's often done by people who aren't, in fact, the nominated executor or who don't subsequently go on to get a grant as administrator. But it's vanishingly rare for this to become an issue in the administration of the estate.

NewClareman

@https://www.boards.ie/profile/Peregrinus I have been an executer and administrator, on different estates. I have also organised funerals of relatives, without any consideration of wills or executers. I am therefore au fait with most of the procedures of estate administration. However, I came across a case of potential intermeddling recently and this added another level of complexity that I had never considered. This set me thinking about this whole area as the definition and scope appears undefined.
For example, what if I discovered, following the decease of the testator, that the estate where I was named executer was extremely difficult and complex. I now wanted to renounce the role, but some implicated parties contested my decision. If the deceased will stated that only the executer (i.e. me) could organise the funeral. By my organising that funeral would I then have been unable to renounce the role, due to intermeddling?

Peregrinus

Intermeddling with the estate can make subsequently renouncing the executor's rule problematic, but it doesn't necessarily make it imposssible. If no-one else wants to take on the role of administrator then the matter may end up in court, with the beneficiaries arguing that, because you have intermeddled, you should be obliged to continue to deal with the estate.

But the courts are reluctant to appoint someone as executor who doesn't want to do the job because, obviously, that increases the risk that the job will not be done well, and/or that disputes will arise about how the job is being done. So they'll ask themselves whether the specific ways in which you have intermeddled really do make it problematic for someone else now to step in as administrator..

If all you have done is to organise the funeral and this is regarded as intermeddling only because, bizarrely, the will stipulates that only the executor can organise the funeral, that looks like pretty marginal stuff. I think a court would be very slow to conclude that that degree of intermeddling presents any real obstacle to someone else taking on the role of administrator and doing the meat of the job, which is getting in the deceased's assets, discharging the deceased's liablities and distributing what remains to those entitled.

There's a lot of background to your query that you're not stating (possibly for good reasons). Why were you selected as executor? What was your relationship to the deceased — are you a family member, or a professional who was to execute the estate for a fee? Are you a beneficiary of the estate? What is the nature of the difficulty/complexity that makes you not want to fill the role? Why are the (other) beneficiaries so keen for you to administer the estate, when you don't want to? Why are none of them willing to take on the administrator's role?

I'm not inviting you to give all this information in a public forum. I'm just pointing out that in a real live case where people were trying to compel you to act as administrator all these questions would be answered in the court proceedings and the answers would obviously have some bearing on what the court ultimately decided.

NewClareman

@https://www.boards.ie/profile/Peregrinus thanks for taking the time for your detailed reply.

You have confirmed my own view that, in similar circumstances to those I outlined, there is a real risk of the dispute ending up in court. How would that dispute be founded where the assets of the estate were fixed, and subject to contention? This should give pause for thought to any lay person agreeing to be executer of an estate,where complications might reasonably arise. It's all fine, until it isn't.

In my own experience as executer, complexity arose due to the size of the estate, the different forms of assets, and the number of interested parties with potential claims on those assets. Even with the assistance of a committed and competent solicitor, it was an onerous task. To my knowledge, I am currently not listed as executer of any estate, thankfully.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123500547#Comment_123500547

In most cases, and particularly large or complex estates, the executor will appoint a firm of solicitors who are happy to handle the full management and distribution of an estate on behalf of an executor. It may take time, and expense, but in practical terms they will undertake all of the work required - so really it shouldn’t be an onerous task on an executor.

NewClareman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123500900#Comment_123500900

Remember, the executor has ultimate legal responsibility for estate management, regardless of whom they may choose to act as their agents. I agree that it shouldn't be an onerous task, but take it from me it most certainly can be. Neither should it be taken for granted that every firm has the necessary expertise, or indeed commitment, to deal with all of the issues that can arise with complex estates. It is one reason why probate can take years.