Over 30 Years Experience

The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists

0800 29 800 29
Contact

Can a Beneficiary Sue the Estate They’re Executing?

Contact Us

contact

Davinder Singh Bal

Consultant Solicitor

Filing a Will Challenge as Executor

The intricacies of estate administration can raise surprising questions. One such scenario involves a beneficiary who wishes to object to the will or even file a will challenge, contesting its validity or provisions. But what happens when this same individual is also named as the executor, tasked with upholding the will’s wishes? This seemingly contradictory situation sparks a debate: can a beneficiary act as executor while simultaneously challenging the will?

The Apparent Conflict: Executor vs. Challenger

On the surface, the roles of executor and will challenger appear inherently at odds. As executor, the individual is responsible for administering the estate impartially, following the law and the deceased’s wishes as expressed in the will. Conversely, a beneficiary challenging the will (often through filing a will challenge or taking the will to court) argues that the document is flawed or unfair. This apparent conflict often raises concerns, particularly from other beneficiaries who might be adversely affected by the challenge.

Legal Precedent: The Court of Appeal Weighs In

Fortunately, the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Bowser v Smith & Anor (Re Estate of Ian John Smith) [2023] EWCA Civ 923 provided a definitive answer. The court clarified that there is “no such conflict exists as a matter of law” when a claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) also acts as the executor. This landmark case dispels the misconception that the two roles are inherently incompatible.

Rationale: Aligning with Beneficiary Interests

The court’s reasoning centers on the core principle that a 1975 Act claim ultimately aims to achieve a more equitable distribution of the estate. This aligns with the executor’s duty to administer the estate fairly, even if it means adjusting the distribution according to the court’s ruling on the will challenge.

Imagine the beneficiaries named in the will as the initial distribution plan. A successful 1975 Act claim simply adds another beneficiary or adjusts the existing shares to achieve a fairer outcome. This perspective removes the inherent conflict perceived by some.

Practical Considerations: Maintaining Distinct Roles

While the court allows a claimant to be the executor, it emphasizes the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between the two roles. This translates to:

  • Meticulous Record-Keeping: Detailed and separate records should be maintained for both the executor and claimant roles.
  • Separate Legal Counsel: Seeking independent legal advice for each role is crucial. Ideally, the lawyers should specialize in contentious probate and estate administration, respectively.
  • Distinct Decision-Making: A clear understanding of which “hat” is being worn when making decisions is essential to avoid conflicts.

Failing to maintain this distinction could lead to challenges regarding the executor’s conduct, potentially resulting in removal.

Navigating Potential Conflicts: When Duties Collide

Despite the legal green light, situations can arise where the dual roles create a potential for conflict. Consider a scenario where the executor-claimant must decide whether to pursue litigation against the estate itself, perhaps contesting the validity of a specific asset transfer. Here, the impartiality expected of an executor could be perceived as compromised.

In such instances, seeking guidance from separate legal counsel specializing in contentious probate becomes crucial. This ensures the executor upholds their fiduciary duty to the estate and avoids any perceived bias.

Transparency Throughout the Process: Addressing Concerns

Transparency is paramount when a claimant acts as the executor. They should clearly disclose their dual role to all beneficiaries and keep them informed of any developments related to the claim, particularly regarding filing a will challenge or taking the will to court. This includes outlining the potential impact of the claim on the overall estate distribution. Open communication helps to mitigate concerns and fosters trust throughout the administration process.

Objections and Challenges: Maintaining Fairness

Even if they are not formally taking the will to court, a claimant-executor might still need to address objections to the will raised by other beneficiaries. In such situations, the executor must remain objective and ensure all objections are considered fairly according to legal principles. This might involve seeking independent legal advice or mediation to navigate any potential conflicts and arrive at a solution that respects the rights of all parties involved.

Implications for Charities

Charities typically wouldn’t bring claims under the 1975 Act. However, they might find themselves on the receiving end of such claims when named as beneficiaries in a contested will. In such situations, it’s crucial to monitor the claimant-executor’s actions closely, ensuring they are fulfilling both roles impartially. If concerns arise about the executor’s conduct regarding the claim or estate administration, seeking legal advice on potential removal becomes necessary.

Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities with Care

While the legal position allows a claimant under the 1975 Act to also act as the executor, navigating this situation requires careful consideration. Here are some key takeaways:

  • Maintaining Distinct Roles: Meticulous record-keeping, separate legal counsel, and clear decision-making are crucial to avoid conflicts. When fulfilling these dual roles, it’s essential to maintain clear boundaries. This means keeping detailed and separate records for both the executor and claimant responsibilities. Additionally, seeking independent legal advice for each role is vital. Ideally, the lawyers should specialize in contentious probate and estate administration, respectively. Finally, a clear understanding of which “hat” is being worn when making decisions, particularly regarding taking a will to court, objecting to a will, or filing a will challenge, is paramount to avoid any conflicts of interest.
  • Seeking Guidance in Conflict Situations: When duties collide, seeking advice from separate legal counsel specializing in contentious probate is essential. In situations where the executor-claimant’s duties might clash, such as deciding to pursue litigation against the estate itself by taking the will to court or filing a will challenge, consulting separate legal counsel specializing in contentious probate becomes crucial. This ensures the executor upholds their fiduciary duty to the estate and avoids any perceived bias.
  • Transparency is Key: Open communication with beneficiaries regarding the claim and its potential impact fosters trust. Throughout the process, transparency is paramount. The claimant-executor should clearly disclose their dual role to all beneficiaries and keep them informed of any developments related to the claim, particularly regarding taking a will to court, objecting to a will, or filing a will challenge. This includes outlining the potential impact of the claim on the overall estate distribution. Open communication helps to mitigate concerns and fosters trust among the beneficiaries.
  • Charities Be Vigilant: Charities named as beneficiaries in contested wills should monitor the claimant-executor’s actions and seek legal advice if concerns arise. While charities typically wouldn’t bring claims under the 1975 Act, they might find themselves on the receiving end of a will challenge. In such situations, it’s crucial for charities to monitor the claimant-executor’s actions closely, ensuring they are fulfilling both roles impartially. If concerns arise about the executor’s conduct regarding the claim or estate administration, seeking legal advice on potential removal becomes necessary.
  • Rectification Claims Require Caution: The potential for conflict in rectification claims is more nuanced and requires a case-by-case analysis with legal guidance. The situation becomes more complex with rectification claims, which aim to correct errors or omissions in the will to reflect the deceased’s true intentions. Here, the potential for conflict is more nuanced. While acting as both executor and claimant might be permissible for minor rectification claims that align with the deceased’s clear intent, for more complex claims that could significantly alter the estate’s distribution, a conflict could arise if the claim involves objecting to a specific provision in the will. A case-by-case analysis is essential to determine if the specific claim creates a genuine conflict for the executor. Consulting with legal counsel specializing in both estate administration and rectification claims is highly recommended in these instances.

By following these guidelines and seeking professional legal advice when necessary, individuals caught between challenging a will and fulfilling their executor duties can navigate this complex situation with greater clarity and minimize the risk of complications during the estate administration process

contact

Davinder Singh Bal

Consultant Solicitor

Frequently asked questions.

Disputes over wills can arise in several circumstances, including:

  • Testamentary capacity: The person who made the will (known as the testator) must have had the mental capacity to understand what they were doing and the consequences of their actions. This means that they must have been able to understand the nature and extent of their property, the people they were giving their property to, and the people they were excluded from their will.

 

  • Valid execution: The will must have been executed correctly under the law. This means it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • Undue influence: The testator must have made the will freely and without any pressure from others. The will may be invalid if someone was unduly influenced to make a will. Undue influence can occur when someone takes advantage of a testator’s vulnerability, such as if the testator is elderly, ill, or has a mental disability.

 

  • Fraud or forgery: If the will was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will, the will may be invalid.

 

Claims against a will must usually be made within six months of the grant of probate being issued. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate. If a claim is not made within this time, it may be too late to challenge the will.

As such, executors often wait until this six-month period has expired before distributing the estate. This is to avoid having to distribute the estate and then having to take it back if a successful claim is made against the will.

Here are some examples of how these disputes can arise:

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will. For example, if the testator was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease at the time the will was made.
  •  

A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was not executed correctly. For example, if the will is not signed by the testator or if it is not witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that they were unduly influenced to make the will. For example, if a caregiver or another family member pressured the testator to make the will in their favour.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will. For example, if someone forged the testator’s signature on the will or if someone lied to the testator about the contents of the will.

If you are thinking about disputing a will, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.



Types of Trusts

Many different types of trusts can be set up, depending on your specific needs and goals. Some of the most common types of trusts include:
Bare Trusts: A bare trust is a simple type of trust in which the trustee holds the assets for the benefit of the beneficiary. The beneficiary is entitled to the income and capital of the trust as soon as they are old enough to receive them.

Interest in Possession Trusts: An interest in possession trust is a type of trust in which the beneficiary is entitled to the income from the trust immediately, but not to the capital until a later date. This type of trust is often used for minor beneficiaries or for beneficiaries who are not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

Discretionary Trusts: A discretionary trust is a type of trust in which the trustee has the discretion to decide how and when to distribute the income and capital of the trust to the beneficiaries. This type of trust is often used for families with multiple beneficiaries or beneficiaries with special needs.

Accumulation Trusts: An accumulation trust is a type of trust in which the income from the trust is accumulated and not distributed to the beneficiaries until a later date. This type of trust is often used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

Mixed Trusts: A mixed trust is a type of trust that combines elements of different types of trusts. For example, a trust may be a discretionary trust for one beneficiary and an interest in possession trust for another beneficiary.

Settlor-Interested Trusts: A settlor-interested trust is a type of trust in which the settlor (the person who creates the trust) retains some interest in the trust assets. For example, the settlor may retain the right to receive income from the trust or to appoint the trustee.

Non-Resident Trusts: A non-resident trust is a type of trust that is created and governed by the laws of a country other than the country where the settlor or beneficiaries reside.
Which type of trust is right for you will depend on your specific needs and goals. It is important to consult with an estate planning attorney to discuss your options and choose the type of trust that is best for you.
Here are some examples of how different types of trusts can be used:
A bare trust can be used to hold assets for a minor child until they reach the age of majority.

An interest in possession trust can be used to provide income to a beneficiary who is not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

A discretionary trust can be used to manage assets for a family with multiple beneficiaries or for beneficiaries with special needs.

An accumulation trust can be used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

A mixed trust can be used to achieve a variety of different goals, such as providing income to one beneficiary and preserving capital for another beneficiary.

A settlor-interested trust can be used to retain some control over trust assets after the settlor has created the trust.

A non-resident trust can be used to reduce estate taxes or to protect assets from creditors.
It is important to note that this is just a brief overview of the different types of trusts. There are many other types of trusts available, and each type of trust has its own specific features and benefits. For more information please visit www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/types-of-trust

Inheritance trust disputes can be complex and varied, but some common scenarios include:

  • Disputes over the validity of the trust: This can happen if the settlor (the person who created the trust) does not have the mental capacity to create a trust, or if the trust deed was not executed correctly.

 

  • Disputes over the interpretation of the trust deed: If the trust deed is poorly drafted or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • Disputes over the appointment or removal of trustees: Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee is not acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may apply to the court to have the trustee removed.

 

  • Disputes over the investment of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to invest trust assets prudently. If a trustee makes investments that are too risky or that lose money, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

  • Disputes over the distribution of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to distribute trust assets to the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. If a trustee distributes trust assets incorrectly, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

Here are some specific examples of inheritance trust disputes that have occurred in the UK:

  • In one case, a beneficiary disputed the validity of a trust deed on the grounds that the settlor (the person who created the trust) did not have the mental capacity to create a trust at the time it was set up.

 

  • In another case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees made a number of risky investments that lost money.



  • In a third case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees distributed trust assets to the beneficiaries in a way that was not in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.

 

Other possible disputes include:

  • A beneficiary was expecting more than what is set out in the trust document. This may be because the beneficiary had a reasonable belief that they would receive more, or because the trust document is unclear about the beneficiary’s entitlement.

 

  • The individual who set up the trust was provided with negligent or misleading advice. If the settlor was not properly advised about the consequences of setting up a trust, or if they were given incorrect information, they may be able to challenge the trust.

 

  • The trust document is either incomplete or unclear about the wishes of the deceased. If the trust document is incomplete or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • A trustee acts against the best interests of the beneficiary or doesn’t administer the trust correctly. Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee breaches their duty, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee.

If you are involved in an inheritance trust dispute, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

Contesting a will is challenging the validity of a will. This can be done on a number of grounds, including.

  • The testator (the person who made the will) did not have the mental capacity to make a will.
  • The will was not executed correctly, i.e., it was not signed by the testator or witnessed by two independent witnesses.
  • The testator was unduly influenced to make the will.
  • The will was forged or fraudulent.

 

Contentious probate is any dispute about the administration of a deceased person’s estate. This can include disputes about

  • The validity of the will.
  • The interpretation of the will.
  • The appointment or removal of executors.
  • The distribution of the estate assets.
  • The management of the estate.
  • In the UK, contentious probate is dealt with by the High Court.

 

The main difference between contesting a will and contentious probate is that contesting a will is specifically challenging the validity of the will, while contentious probate can include a wide range of disputes about the administration of an estate.

Here is an example:

Contesting a will: A beneficiary challenges the validity of a will on the grounds that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will.

Contentious probate: A beneficiary disputes the interpretation of a will and argues that they are entitled to a larger share of the estate than they have been given.

It is important to note that the two terms are often used interchangeably. For example, a lawyer might say that they are “dealing with a contentious probate matter” when they are actually challenging the validity of a will.

If you are thinking about contesting a will or pursuing a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

The time limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK is six months from the grant of probate. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate.

If you do not make your claim within this six-month time limit, you may need to apply to the court for permission to make a late claim. The court will only grant permission if you have a good reason for not making your claim on time.

There are a number of factors that the court will consider when deciding whether to grant permission for a late claim, including:

  • Why did you not make your claim on time?
  • The strength of your case.
  • Whether the other beneficiaries will be prejudiced if your claim is allowed to proceed.
  • If the court grants you permission to make a late claim, you will need to file your claim within 28 days.

 

It is important to note that there are some exceptions to the six-month time limit. For example, if the executor has committed fraud or concealed assets from the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may be able to make a claim after the six-month time limit has expired.

If you are thinking about making a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. A lawyer can assess your case and advise you on the time limits that apply and whether you have a good case.

Here are some examples of when you might be able to make a late contentious probate claim:

  • You were not aware of the death of the deceased until after the six-month time limit had expired.
  • You were unable to make your claim on time because you were ill or incapacitated.
  • The executor has deliberately concealed information from you about the estate.
  • The executor has committed fraud in the administration of the estate.

 

The 12-year limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK applies to claims for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. This means that if you are making a claim for financial provision from an estate, you must do so within 12 years of the date of the deceased’s death.

The reason for the 12-year limit is to encourage people to make their claims as soon as possible after the deceased’s death. This is because it can become more difficult to investigate and prove a claim after a long period of time has elapsed.

If you are unsure whether you are able to make a late contentious probate claim, you should seek legal advice.

Most disputes in the UK are resolved out of court through mediation and negotiation. This is because it is generally faster, cheaper, and less stressful for all involved.

If you are considering disputing a will, it is important to contact a contentious probate specialist before you involve any other relatives or beneficiaries of the estate. A specialist lawyer can advise you on your legal options and help you to resolve the dispute quickly and efficiently.

Here are some of the benefits of resolving a will dispute out of court:

  • It is faster and cheaper than going to court.
  • It is less stressful for all involved.
  • It allows you to maintain relationships with other family members and beneficiaries.
  • You have more control over the outcome of the dispute.

 

There are a number of steps that you can take to try to resolve a contentious probate dispute without going to court, including

  • Negotiation: You can try to negotiate a settlement with the other parties to the dispute. This may involve making concessions on your part, but it can be a good way to avoid the time and expense of court proceedings.
  • Mediation: Mediation is a process where an independent mediator helps the parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Mediation can be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court, but it is important to note that it is not binding on the parties.
  • Arbitration: Arbitration is a more formal process than mediation, and it is binding on the parties. However, it can still be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court.

 

If you are unable to resolve the dispute amicably, you will need to file a claim with the High Court. The court will then hold a hearing to decide the case.

Contact our Team

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

email Us

News and Insights