Executor of a Will/Estate

[txtxyeha]

Pops and Step-Mother are having some changes done to their will and one of the things they will do is remove his best friend as executor who, like Pops, is getting up in age. Step-Mother's son recently had to execute his father's will, and according Pops is doing a good job. S-M's son is a construction worker by trade and a really good guy.

Pops and S-M figure since their will is so simple (e.g., half the assets go to his kids, half the assets go to her kids) that really good guy son should be the executor. Save everyone a few bucks. After Pops asked for my opinion (which was nice), I maintained that this places really good guy son in a conflict-of-interest and the thing to do is appoint a 3rd-party as executor (e.g., lawyer).

S-M is going to think I am accusing really good guy son of clubing baby seals and saying bad things about the Baby Jesus (i.e., being Bob Stoops), but given that they have assets between $100K and $1MM it's just the right business thing to do, even if the lawyer costs $$ (what - $2K? $10K?).

Oh wise HornFans - tell me I'm being wise, paranoid, foolish, whatever. I can take it.

 

[zork]

tell your dad to ask the 'good' son in law if it is ok if txtxyeha is the executor or should they appoint a third party lawyer.(have lawyer in mind)

don't let mom in law get wind of this or she might tell son in law. when he says lawyer you have your ammunition.

games can backfire though. I've lived through what money fighting can do to a family, steps in cluded. it can be very ugly.

 

[l00p]

I think you are being sensible. I think if I were the other guy I would be more than happy to have a lawyer and not myself in that spot. He may even feel uneasy about it but does not want to say anything. I would approach him directly and over a meal and beer tell him your feelings.

Let him know that you respect him but that you think it is a conflict of interests and that there is no way you would do it yourself were you in his spot. Just too much to go wrong with too long lasting results. Chances are low things go wrong but dammit, they always find a way.

You want to preserve harmony no matter what and you want to reduce all aspects of it. Remind him of your respect for him and admiration of the good job he did with the other execution of a will.

Formula:

Compliment
Facts
Compliment

 

[OldHippie]

I'm in the process of serving as executor of my mother's will. I hired a lawyer for the probate process. He told me that I should pay myself $250/hour to act as executor. Since it is all family, I didn't charge anything. I assume any lawyer you hire to be an executor will charge you for time spent. If you can get a lawyer to do it for a flat fee, you might have a much better time of making that decision. However, for me, it has required a lot of time and I have spent hundreds of hours messing with this stuff. I notified the heirs of every little thing I did and allowed them to have input into how to deal with the assets of the estate and that added to the time spent. But, still I say, if he is a good guy and will keep you informed of what is going on, I'd let him do it.

 

[NickDanger]

Why did you think you needed a lawyer to do this. It isn't remotely legal work yet the estate would be charged rates for legal work.

Most of the time, a fairl simple estate could be handled by Bevo.

 

[txtxyeha]

Thanks for all the comment, guys.

Let me add a little more color to the situation. The son of the S-M is a really good guy. At least that was my impression of him the last time I saw him 10 year ago. The two sets of kids have no interaction with each other, thus he could either: a) rob us blind, or b) do all this nasty work for no fee at all and thus cheat himself in order to be beyond reproach. I just don't know.

I'm showing my ignorance to the probate process. Could he just hand over a stick of gum to the three of us on the dad's side and say, "that's half of what's left, guys. Y'all have a good life."?

 

[OldHippie]

In my case the probate process was to define the extent of the estate, what money and asset belonged to my mother when she died, for the will to be accepted by the court and for me to be appointed to be executor as stipulated in the will. My understanding as executor is that I am appointed by the court to carry out the terms of the will, which is a legal document. If the executor does not do that, I guess you have to get a lawyer and sue him.

 

[Bernard]

I don't know much about wills, but I have a question about this:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BOSS]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornian]

Executors have very little discretion, they are bound by the terms of the will. Oh, sure, there could be a problem with selling the house for a sweetheart deal or attempting to hide a bank account or something, but that's not that easy in reality and is really fairly unlikely unless the executor has a very specific set of professional skills. But if you're really worried about it, you can always file to have the estate confirmed by the court before it is distributed later on down the line.

However, if you're worried about getting "robbed blind" via probate, you're thinking about it wrong. You don't really need to worry about an executor robbing you blind - you need to worry about someone influencing a change in the will's terms and then getting blindsided by that when your dad passes. Or just having a poorly drafted will, like BOSS said.

 

[NickDanger]

Why do "They" have a will at all? They probably ought to have separate wills and it would clear up a lot of this stuff.

 

[Endust]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger]

if they want to save money then ask to be co-executor that way your family has someone with their best interest in mind as does you S-M's family.

 

[txtxyeha]

Pops ended up putting one of his three sons as co-executor. Again, appreciate the input especially commenting were the risk is. It appears that I shouldn't worry about an executor(s) saying to everyone else, "He's your stick of gum - they just didn't have as much money as we thought." It's how the will is written.

I've been told verbally that the intent is for the surviving spouse to be able to live reasonably (put a legal definition on that one) off the assets they have jointly accumulated over their 20+ years together. Upon the passing of the remaining spouse then all assets will be divided half to her kids and half to his kids. I have often wondered what's to prevent a surviving spouse from rewriting the will?

Got to put in the normal disclaimer that it's their money - they can donate it all to the...wait...this is just to illustrate a point...they can donate it all to the OU athletic department for all I care. Well, I really don't mean that, but you get the drift. I guess I need to see the actual language to see if it reconciles with what I've been told verbally. Rather deal with this now while the subject has presented himself rather than have some cluster happen later.

I especially liked the one told by friend-of-friend that married man who lives in non-community property estate dies, but life insurance still listed ex-wife as beneficiary (or something like that). Again, thanks everyone. Hornfans makes me appear smarter than I am.