Mr Taylor, a widower, died at the age of 82, in 2022. His wife, Mrs Taylor, had died some years before and after her death all her assets passed to Mr Taylor.
When Mr Taylor died, his estate consisted of the family home in Leeds; savings held in bank accounts; and a car, together with his personal possessions.
Mr Taylor had three sons, James, Robert and Samuel, and one daughter, Jane. Mr Taylor had made a Will shortly after the death of his wife in which he stated that his estate should be divided equally between his four children, James, Robert, Samuel and Jane.
As James and Robert were the oldest, Mr Taylor had appointed them as the Executors of his Will. This meant that James and Robert were responsible for gathering in their father’s assets, paying any outstanding bills and/or liabilities and then distributing the estate equally between the four of them in accordance with their father’s Will.
James and Robert knew that they must work together to administer their father’s estate and that they had to agree on all decisions. This all seemed straightforward to James and Robert.
However, they quickly realised that they had a difference of opinion as to what should happen with their father’s house. James wanted his father’s house to stay within the family and offered to buy this. James obtained a valuation, but Robert felt the valuation was too low and would not agree to sell the house to James for that price. James wanted to put the property on the open market for sale.
It was essential to resolve any disagreement to enable the administration of their father’s estate to progress smoothly.
Not only was there a disagreement in respect of the property but this also put James into a difficult position. As an Executor of his father’s Will, he had a duty to achieve the best price for the property, however, on a personal level, he wanted to buy the property at the best price he could.
In addition, Samuel and Jane were not happy that the disagreement between James and Robert meant that there were delays in dealing with their father’s estate and that they were not receiving their inheritance as quickly as they thought they would.
There are a number of options available to the family. One of the most effective ways of resolving this type of disagreement is to communicate and have sensible discussions with one another.
If James and Robert thought from the outset that they may not be able to act alongside one another, one of them could agree to step aside before any formal steps were taken to administer their father’s estate and there are different ways of doing this. Alternatively, James and Robert could both agree to step aside and choose to appoint an independent executor to deal with probate on their behalf.
If neither James nor Robert wanted to step aside, it would be open to them to seek legal advice separately; or to jointly choose to appoint a Probate Specialist to guide them through the process and deal with the administration of their father’s estate on their behalf.
Samuel and Jane would need to allow James and Robert an opportunity to resolve any differences and, again, communication between all parties is key. Whilst it would be possible for Samuel and Jane to apply to the Court to remove James as an Executor of their father’s estate, this would be seen as a last resort and legal guidance would be required as it is risky and can be very costly. Simple disagreements would not be a good enough reason for an Executor to be removed, Samuel and Jane would need to show that James was not carrying out his duties as an Executor properly.
