Co-Executors And The Deadlock They Create

Appointing two children jointly to administer an estate is usually an attempt to avoid hurt feelings. It converts a family disagreement into a structural obstacle with legal force.

How joint authority operates

Co-executors generally must act together. Unless the will provides otherwise, signatures of all appointees are needed for transactions, filings and distributions.

Financial institutions and title companies apply this literally, refusing instructions carrying one signature where two representatives are appointed.

The consequence is that each co-executor holds a veto over every step, whether the disagreement is substantive or simply a matter of one being slow to respond.

Where deadlock actually arises

The recurring flashpoints are the family home and the timing of sales. One appointee wants a quick sale to close the estate, the other wants to keep or occupy the property.

Valuation of personal items, choice of professionals and the level of expense the estate should bear produce the same standoff on a smaller scale.

Distributions are often held hostage to these disputes, so beneficiaries who are not involved in the argument wait while it plays out.

The cost of resolving it

Where co-executors cannot agree, the remedy is usually a court application for instructions or for removal of one appointee.

Both routes consume estate assets, and each side will typically want its own representation, so a single disagreement can generate two sets of professional fees.

The delay compounds the cost, because taxes, insurance and maintenance continue on assets nobody has authority to sell.

Drafting that reduces the risk

A will can provide that co-executors may act by majority, which requires an odd number, or that one has authority over specified categories of decision.

Allowing one appointee to act alone for routine administration while requiring agreement for major transactions preserves the symbolism without the paralysis.

Naming one executor with the other as first alternate is the simplest alternative, and it can be explained in a letter so the choice does not read as a verdict on either child.

Why the symbolic appointment persists

Parents appoint jointly because declining to name a child feels like a public judgement, and the administrative reality is invisible at the time of drafting.

The role is work rather than an honour, and the child best suited to it is often not the one whose feelings are most at stake.

Rules on joint authority, majority action and removal vary by jurisdiction and change over time. This is general information, and a qualified professional should advise on any specific appointment.