While discussing wills, clients sometimes want to name co-executors, so that two people serve together as executor. Most commonly, they want two children to serve together. Clients often think naming co-executors lightens the load of administering their estate. After all, isn’t the saying, “many hands make light work”? That advice works great for finishing yard work faster, but not so well for administering an estate.
Clients often do not realize that co-executors must do nearly every task TOGETHER. Both must sign every check and every form. Both must appear at the bank to open the estate bank account. The Clerk of Court, banks, and insurance companies are going to expect and require that they act together. Rather than dividing up co-executors’ work, you often double it. There are a few tasks they can assign to one or the other, like who will reconcile bank statements and organize documents, but that time savings is more than offset by the number of joint tasks.
This information helps clients understand why it may be better to name people to serve as executor one at a time, in order of priority. For example, they may choose their older child first, and younger child only if the older one was unable to serve. They may choose the child who lives closer or the one who has fewer family responsibilities of their own to serve first, and the other as the contingent. I can reduce possible hurt feelings by adding a will provision like this, “Both my children are fully capable of serving as executor. I am naming them to serve one at a time because I understand this facilitates simpler administration of my estate.”
It is especially problematic to name co-executors if these people do not work well together, or if they have different working styles (which is different from whether they love each other). Putting them in that situation may strain their relationship.
Parents of blended families may want a representative of each branch of the family to be co-executors when both parents are gone. In that more complicated circumstance, it is admirable to try to increase trust and transparency and to reduce conflict. That is one situation where the advantages MAY outweigh the disadvantages, but the pros and cons should be considered carefully.
Another alternative is to choose a single executor who is not one of the clients’ children. That might be a friend or a more distant relative. Still another choice is a professional executor. With a professional executor, there typically will be greater expense than appointing a friend or family member.
If a client still wants two co-executors after hearing that it can create double trouble, I typically honor that request since they have made an informed decision. If the client likes, I can include wording like, “If my children find it easier for only one of them to serve as executor, they may agree upon that, and qualify with the Clerk of Court accordingly.” Without that context, co-executors may not realize that one can bow out if they prefer.
It is never a good idea to appoint three or more people to serve as co-executors. It is simply too unwieldy.
Good estate planning includes considering how your choice of executor (or co-executors) will affect your appointees, their relationship, and your whole family. Instead of automatically going with co-executors, think through your options and their likely consequences first.
Kim K. Steffan is an attorney with Steffan & Associates, P.C. in Hillsborough. She can be reached at (919) 732-7300 or kim.steffan@steffanlaw.com.