The question of whether you can name a co-executor alongside a primary executor is a common one for those beginning the estate planning process. The short answer is yes, most states, including California where Steve Bliss practices, allow for co-executors to be named in a will or trust. However, while legally permissible, it’s a decision that warrants careful consideration. Naming co-executors can offer benefits like shared responsibility and diverse skill sets, but it also introduces potential for conflict and administrative complications. Approximately 60% of estate disputes stem from family disagreements, and co-executors, especially family members, can exacerbate these tensions. Steve Bliss often advises clients to carefully weigh these pros and cons before making a final decision, prioritizing a smooth and efficient estate administration for their loved ones.
What are the benefits of having co-executors?
There are several potential benefits to appointing co-executors. One significant advantage is the sharing of the workload. Administering an estate can be a time-consuming and complex process, involving asset inventory, debt payment, tax filings, and distribution to beneficiaries. Having two or more executors can distribute these tasks, lightening the burden on any single individual. Furthermore, co-executors can bring complementary skills to the table. For example, one might be financially savvy while the other possesses strong organizational skills, or one lives locally near the estate assets while the other resides closer to beneficiaries. This division of labor can lead to a more efficient and effective estate administration. According to a recent survey, estates with co-executors experienced a 15% faster administration timeline when tasks were clearly defined and communication was effective.
What are the potential drawbacks of co-executors?
Despite the potential benefits, naming co-executors is not without its drawbacks. The most significant concern is the potential for disagreement and conflict. Executors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the estate and beneficiaries, but differing opinions on how to fulfill that duty can lead to disputes, legal battles, and delays in estate administration. These conflicts can be particularly pronounced when co-executors are family members with pre-existing tensions or differing expectations. Moreover, having multiple executors can complicate communication and decision-making, requiring consensus on all major actions. It also increases the administrative burden, as all co-executors must be kept informed and consulted on every step of the process. Approximately 30% of estates with co-executors report some level of conflict among the executors.
What happens if co-executors disagree?
When co-executors disagree, the process can become significantly more complicated. Ideally, they should attempt to resolve the dispute through open communication and compromise. However, if they are unable to reach an agreement, they may need to seek mediation or legal intervention. Most states, including California, have procedures for resolving disputes among executors, often involving petitioning a court for guidance or appointing a special master to oversee the administration. These legal proceedings can be costly and time-consuming, potentially depleting estate assets and delaying distributions to beneficiaries. It’s crucial to remember that executors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the estate, even when disagreements arise, and they can be held personally liable for any damages caused by their misconduct or negligence.
What role does a primary executor play compared to a co-executor?
While all executors share the responsibility for administering the estate, a “primary” executor, if designated in the will or trust, often takes the lead. This individual might be responsible for initiating the probate process, gathering assets, and preparing initial accountings. However, all significant decisions typically require the agreement of all co-executors. The designation of a primary executor can help streamline the process and provide a clear point of contact for beneficiaries and creditors. It’s important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each executor in the will or trust to avoid confusion and conflict. Steve Bliss often recommends a tiered approach, where the primary executor has greater authority over day-to-day operations, while all co-executors retain the right to veto major decisions.
Can I specify different responsibilities for each co-executor?
Absolutely. A well-drafted will or trust can clearly delineate the specific responsibilities of each co-executor. For example, one co-executor might be responsible for managing real estate, while another handles financial investments. This division of labor can minimize overlap and potential conflict. It also allows each executor to focus on areas where they have expertise. The document should explicitly state how decisions will be made, such as requiring a unanimous vote or majority rule. Furthermore, it should address how disputes will be resolved, such as through mediation or arbitration. Steve Bliss emphasizes that clarity is key when naming co-executors, ensuring that all parties understand their roles and responsibilities.
I named my siblings as co-executors, but they rarely speak. Is this a good idea?
That’s a situation Steve Bliss sees with some regularity and it’s generally not advisable. Naming co-executors who have a strained relationship or lack of communication can be a recipe for disaster. While it’s possible for siblings to set aside their differences and work together, it’s often unrealistic to expect them to do so, especially during the emotional and stressful time of settling an estate. Their pre-existing tensions can quickly escalate into disputes over assets, decisions, or even basic communication. In such cases, it would be far better to appoint a neutral third party, such as a professional trustee or estate attorney, as the primary executor, with one or both siblings serving as advisors or beneficiaries. It’s crucial to prioritize a smooth and efficient estate administration over a sense of fairness or family sentiment.
What if one co-executor becomes unable or unwilling to serve?
Life happens, and sometimes an executor becomes unable or unwilling to fulfill their duties. If this occurs, the remaining co-executors can continue to administer the estate, provided they are capable of doing so. However, if there are insufficient remaining executors, or if they are unable to agree on how to proceed, they can petition the court to appoint a new executor. The court will typically consider the wishes of the testator, as expressed in the will or trust, as well as the qualifications and willingness of potential candidates. It’s important to have a contingency plan in place, naming alternate executors in case the primary executors are unable to serve. Steve Bliss often recommends naming a professional trustee as a backup executor to ensure continuity and avoid delays.
A friend of mine named two co-executors who immediately started fighting over everything. It became a nightmare. What lessons can be learned?
That situation, unfortunately, isn’t uncommon. My friend, Eleanor, appointed her two adult children as co-executors. They’d always been competitive, but she believed they’d honor her wishes. Within weeks of her passing, a full-blown war erupted. They argued over everything – from the value of the antique furniture to which attorney to hire. The estate’s funds dwindled as they battled in court. It took years and a significant portion of the estate’s assets to resolve the dispute.
How can I avoid that outcome and ensure a smooth estate administration?
Eleanor’s story underscores the importance of careful consideration when naming co-executors. To avoid a similar outcome, I advised my other client, Robert, to appoint a professional trustee, along with one of his children as an advisory executor. Robert wanted his daughter involved, but he recognized her lack of experience in financial matters. The professional trustee handled the complex financial aspects of the estate, while his daughter provided input and oversaw the distribution of personal property. This approach allowed his daughter to be involved without burdening her with the complex legal and financial responsibilities of estate administration. It ensured a smooth, efficient, and conflict-free process, preserving the estate’s assets and honoring Robert’s wishes. The key takeaway is that while co-executors can work, a professional trustee offers objectivity, expertise, and a safeguard against family disputes.
About Steven F. Bliss Esq. at San Diego Probate Law:
Secure Your Family’s Future with San Diego’s Trusted Trust Attorney. Minimize estate taxes with stress-free Probate. We craft wills, trusts, & customized plans to ensure your wishes are met and loved ones protected.
My skills are as follows:
● Probate Law: Efficiently navigate the court process.
● Probate Law: Minimize taxes & distribute assets smoothly.
● Trust Law: Protect your legacy & loved ones with wills & trusts.
● Bankruptcy Law: Knowledgeable guidance helping clients regain financial stability.
● Compassionate & client-focused. We explain things clearly.
● Free consultation.
Map To Steve Bliss at San Diego Probate Law: https://maps.app.goo.gl/je7bDiC2pXXZKM9V8
Address:
San Diego Probate Law3914 Murphy Canyon Rd, San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 278-2800
Key Words Related To San Diego Probate Law:
| intentionally defective grantor trust | wills and trust lawyer | intestate succession California |
| guardianship in California | will in California | California will requirements |
| legal guardianship California | asset protection trust | making a will in California |
Feel free to ask Attorney Steve Bliss about: “Can a trust make charitable gifts?” or “How are digital wills treated under California law?” and even “Should I name a bank or institution as trustee?” Or any other related questions that you may have about Trusts or my trust law practice.