Changing Lanes – Removing an Executor

Monica Lane died on 8^th May 2019.  She originally had three children David, Susan and Peter. Peter unfortunately died before Monica, leaving two children Daniel and Georgia.  David died after Monica (but before the case came to court), such that his interests were represented by his wife, Karen, who was also the personal representative of his estate. Karen was the claimant, the defendants being her sister-in-law, Susan, and her nephew and niece, Daniel and Georgia.

Monica and David had a farming partnership, and a large part of the case involved the interpretation of a clause in her Will dated 23^rd February 2013, in which she gave David her “share and interest” in that partnership. Everything else was given to the defendants. Both Karen and Susan alleged that the other had acted improperly – in Susan’s case, in connection with the administration of Monica’s estate as executor pursuant to a grant of probate dated January 2023.

It is of course interesting that she managed to obtain a grant of probate because she had previously alleged that Monica’s Will was invalid due to lack of mental capacity even though she had been perfectly happy to rely on an LPA signed by Monica approximately two years later.

Karen had herself tried to be appointed as personal representative and had originally refused to provide Susan with the original Will for the purposes of Susan’s application.

A mediation in May 2022 was unsuccessful. The court having resolved the construction issue, the judge had to decide whether in the context that the relationship between Karen and Susan had “broken down completely and irretrievably” whether Susan should remain as the personal representative or should be replaced by an independent professional administrator. Friction or hostility between the personal representatives and one or more beneficiaries is not of itself sufficient under Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to replace the personal representative. It is only if, for whatever reason, it has become impossible or difficult for the administration of the estate to be completed that an order for removal should be made.

Despite the fact that Georgia and Daniel supported Susan remaining in post, the judge decided that a professional administrator needed to be appointed. He had a number of serious concerns about how the estate administration had been handled in the past and took the view that there were “difficulties” ahead in the administration given what had happened to date. Apart from the fact that even by the time of the hearing there was no clear set of estate accounts, Susan’s solicitors had never responded to the detailed letter of claim seeking amongst other things, her removal. It appeared that there were potentially other construction issues in terms of the interpretation of the will which might cause further problems in the future.

Despite the risk of additional costs being incurred, the judge decided that he needed to “grasp the nettle” and bring in someone who could “deal efficiently with estate administration”.

He stated, “in the long run, sticking with a set up that is causing problems will likely incur the greater costs”. In other words, if it is broke, you do need to fix it. The judge thought that an independent administrator might in future be able to find proposals for any future problems, which meant that further applications to the court for directions could be avoided.

Get in touch with our Contentious Probate team

To speak to a member of our expert team about a will dispute, contact us today by calling 0330 175 7617 or email us at enquiries@ibblaw.co.uk.