CLOSE SEARCH
In this case study, the parties were four adult children of the Deceased. The Deceased named two of their children as Executors and all four children were equal share beneficiaries of the residuary estate. We represented three of these children, (one was the named Executor) who were in agreement with each other but in disagreement with the other sibling Executor beneficiary.
There was no challenge to the validity of the Will, but rather the dispute related to the administration of the Estate. The second Executor (the Defendant) was not progressing the estate administration.
Our clients’ objectives were to have an independent specialist probate solicitor appointed as the Estate Executor.
The challenges to be addressed included:
There had been a total breakdown of relations between the Claimants on one side and the Defendant on the other resulting in no progress being made with the administration of the estate. Family meetings took place which the parties attended in an attempt to resolve their various disagreements, but without success.
The Claimants invited the Defendant on numerous occasions to agree to an independent administrator being appointed, but the Defendant failed to provide any adequate or satisfactory reply to the requests and pre-action letters. A claim form was then issued.
There was a clear inability for the named Executors to co-operate and concur in the expeditious administration of the Deceased’s estate. The Defendant wasn’t even willing to agree to the joint instruction of the solicitor to obtain the grant in the first place, which illustrated the total breakdown in relations between the two named Executors.
It had been over three years since the Deceased had died and no administration had been possible during this time, causing prejudice to the parties as beneficiaries in the form of IHT penalties and interest, plus being deprived of their inheritance as no distribution could take place
Providing the legal basis for our clients’ position. The legal remedy was to apply to the Court under Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove or substitute the Executor(s). A Part 8 claim was filed seeking the appointment of an independent administrator, which was supported by witness statements of all three Claimants.
We requested either an order of the Court for the above remedy sought or by agreement of the parties.
We also sought an order that the First Claimant and the Defendant should serve on the other parties and administrator, all documents, including books, records, accounts, and bank statements evidencing their dealings with the administration of the estate from the date of death.
Reaching a resolution despite bad relations amongst the four siblings. This was a classic case where the appointment of an independent administrator was appropriate.
The proceedings were only necessary as a result of the Defendant’s refusal to agree to a jointly instructed administrator. In view of this, an appropriate costs order was requested for the Defendant to be ordered to pay the Claimants’ costs, on the standard basis, to be summarily assessed by the Court, with the power given to the administrators to deduct these costs from the Defendant’s share of the estate, if she did not pay them.
Once the Court ordered an independent administrator be appointed, this allowed the parties to carry on with their normal lives without the expense and emotional upset and anxiety of litigation.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
