Executor majority rule

[nimrod2020]

Thank you to members replies on a previous post regarding this principle, but we require more information because of a doubtful individual.


When there are multiple executors / administrators to a will, whilst they should look to form a consensus on any decision, there may be times when they cannot agree, and in those circumstances it becomes a vote with the majority ruling.

That makes sense to me, as otherwise a single executor could just continue to refuse to agree to a decision . . . . . for ever ?

My question is, can anyone point me at the pertinent legislation / guideline that actually spells out the majority rule.

thanks in advance

[PallasAthena]

This article may help

What happens when joint executors or attorneys disagree with each other? | The Gazette

[nimrod2020]

This article may help

What happens when joint executors or attorneys disagree with each other? | The Gazette

Thank you PallasAthena

The Gazette article does not appear to mention majority rule (which is what I was hoping to see),

and also, in the case of land, it states that "all executors must agree" (it points to the Administration of Estates Act 1925).



many thanks

[Pezza54]

If the executors are disputing how real estate should be dealt with, please read Provision 28 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925
An executor may be held personally liable in court and unable to recover their legal costs from the estate

[atticus]

I don't think "majority rule" is the right approach. That article has it right.

[nimrod2020]

Thank you all for your advice to date.

Time has moved on and the situation has evolved :-

We are taking about inherited land (farmhouse and fields);

There are 3 executors, and they do not agree,
Two of the executors want to sell the estate at the prevailing "market value"
One executor disagrees to a sale at market value, and wants to buy them out for approx half the market value. He states that he can "take them to court" and the court will back him ( ! ).

The two others are trying to get him to attend a meeting with the family solicitor, whom they hope will explain to him the consequences of his thinking. On the assumption that he still disagrees, what sort of "court case" could he initiate, and what level of costs might that impose on both sides ?

[atticus]

Well indeed. He has not been well advised, if indeed he is being advised.

I suppose he could bring a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA), but I can't see it getting anywhere.

Costs: well into 5 figures.

[nimrod2020]

Well indeed. He has not been well advised, if indeed he is being advised.

I suppose he could bring a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA), but I can't see it getting anywhere.

Costs: well into 5 figures.

He has not been professionally advised at all.

This situation seems to me so one sided that any court would quickly dismiss his claim, therefore, do the Two other executors necessarily need to spend big money in fighting him ?

[atticus]

If they can't all agree, then sooner or later some form of dispute resolution will be required, unless you prefer to leave everything unresolved.

[Tofros]

If the executor won’t engage with the lawyers I t might be worth asking the family solicitors whether it would be more cost effective to apply to have the person removed as executor as they now have a conflict with their personal interest and are not acting in the best interest of the beneficiaries as a whole.

[nimrod2020]

If the executor won’t engage with the lawyers I t might be worth asking the family solicitors whether it would be more cost effective to apply to have the person removed as executor as they now have a conflict with their personal interest and are not acting in the best interest of the beneficiaries as a whole.

Thank you Tofros.
I agree. The solicitor has also advised that if he continues to not listen, then mediation will come along as a step - and he will almost certainly loose. I can see the logic in that.