I am trying to find out the legal responsibility of an executor in maintaining a property (house) of the deceased. Are they allowed to access money in the deceased current account either personally or by asking the bank or solicitor to pay any bills incurred since the death of the person? (ESB, Alarm monitoring,and heating oil), the house is unoccupied,.What is the position in regards to direct debits that are still being paid for the insurance of the property?
Responsibilities of an executor
- Thread starter Shelby219
- Start date
Yes the bank may pay some bills that arrive before probate has been granted. I recall there was one bill that my husband got the bank to pay (might have been lpt) but husband had no access to the account.
Otherwise the solicitor paid or my husband paid all the bills, and once receipts were provided the estate paid back once probate was granted. The solicitor emailed looking for all vouched expenses paid by my husband following his mothers death once probate was granted and the house sold.
Otherwise the solicitor paid or my husband paid all the bills, and once receipts were provided the estate paid back once probate was granted. The solicitor emailed looking for all vouched expenses paid by my husband following his mothers death once probate was granted and the house sold.
Direct debits will be stopped as soon as the account is frozen.
Utilities (Electric / gas) are generally happy to let bills run on for a time pending probate. Phone / bb can be cancelled.
Banks can pay some bills (e.g. funeral) on presentation of invoice.
For many other items e.g. insurance, funeral breakfast etc, exec or other family members may have to cover them & will be repaid from estate. Keep all the receipts.
Utilities (Electric / gas) are generally happy to let bills run on for a time pending probate. Phone / bb can be cancelled.
Banks can pay some bills (e.g. funeral) on presentation of invoice.
For many other items e.g. insurance, funeral breakfast etc, exec or other family members may have to cover them & will be repaid from estate. Keep all the receipts.
Is there any legal obligation on the Exercutor to immediately close the deceased's bank account? If there isn't, would it not be more practical to leave it open so standing orders for things like utilities and insurance could continue to be paid?
Don't mean to be pedantic (honestly! 
) but do they close the account or just "freeze" activity on it? I believe that the latter happened with my parent's accounts. Or do they close the account but leave the balance in situ while the probate process is in train? Or do they close the account and the money goes into the solicitor's client account for safe keeping during this process?
) but do they close the account or just "freeze" activity on it? I believe that the latter happened with my parent's accounts. Or do they close the account but leave the balance in situ while the probate process is in train? Or do they close the account and the money goes into the solicitor's client account for safe keeping during this process?Ok thanks.
Thanks for the replies, if it's the case where the will hasn't been sent to the probate office after 18 months and there are monies owed for maintaining the house since the death, is it the executors that are responsible, can they be pursued legally by a company, eg home heating oil was ordered for the house ,5 months ago and still not paid, and naturally they are looking for payment, and executors are just ignoring them,
The executor’s duties include taking out probate and securing the estate. Securing the estate includes discharging utility bills etc and these costs will be charged to the estate. The utility companies will pursue the executor for these.
However, if the executor does not go about extracting the grant of probate, they’re merely the ‘named executor’ and it is doubtful whether they’re on hook for these bills until the probate is extracted.
I have it in my head that the named executor has one year to extract the grant of probate. If he/she hasn’t done anything, then it’s up to the beneficiaries or next of kin to make an application to the High Court for a grant of administration with the will annexed. I’m open to correction on this, but the point is that the named executor can’t sit around indefinitely and do nothing without other options being open to the beneficiaries. Check with a solicitor.
However, if the executor does not go about extracting the grant of probate, they’re merely the ‘named executor’ and it is doubtful whether they’re on hook for these bills until the probate is extracted.
I have it in my head that the named executor has one year to extract the grant of probate. If he/she hasn’t done anything, then it’s up to the beneficiaries or next of kin to make an application to the High Court for a grant of administration with the will annexed. I’m open to correction on this, but the point is that the named executor can’t sit around indefinitely and do nothing without other options being open to the beneficiaries. Check with a solicitor.
There is a hand written note on the back of the will which states there is a debt owed to the executors, but this is only witnessed by one person and previously mentioned by the solicitor that it does not form part of the will ( which the other beneficiaries also agree), however the executors have told us when we enquired as to the progress of the probate, that nothing is going to happen until we agree on the debt being paid, we have told and signed a letter to the solicitor(which the solicitor had sent to all the beneficiaries to see if they agreed yes or no) to say we do not agree with the debt, but have heard nothing and solicitor is not returning calls ,so don't know where we stand, or what the timeline is in these situations?
Ok. This is the issue.
If one year has elapsed since the date of death and nothing has happened towards the extraction of the grant of probate and administration of the estate, then an application can be made to have the executor replaced by the next person entitled.
Sounds like you need to consult a solicitor. It sounds like you’re a beneficiary. So you need to know that any costs pertaining to have the executor replaced will likely come from the estate, which will whittle down your and the other beneficiaries’ share. If contested by the named executor, the costs could be substantial as it’s done in the High Court.
If the debt was small, would agreeing to it be the easiest path to follow? Whilst the note on the back of the will does not form part of the will, it can constitute an acknowledgement of debt, which the executor could rely on as the basis of their claim. They’re being prudent in seeking the consent of the beneficiaries to having it discharged, but they’re not obliged to.
How much is the debt?
Ok. Not an insubstantial amount.
You have the options alluded to above, but none are attractive and it sounds like the executor is stalling as a tactic to obtain consent for payment of the debt.
Whilst you may have your views on the propriety of the debt, the reality is that the testator acknowledged it in writing and the executor has this point going in their favour.
If the property is valuable, then €60k of a reduction may be something you’ll have to live with to get the estate administered by the executor. The alternative is that you or the next entitled person brings proceedings to have the executor removed and replaced. And we know it’s likely to be contested and the estate’s value whittled down accordingly. The High Court is expensive and everyone loses.
Last edited:
Is the solicitor referred to here the solicitor for the estate/executors? If that is the case, then s/he is acting at cross purposes by apparently advising the beneficiaries and the executors about the same matter, especially as the will has not gone to probate yet and cannot be published.
To quote Confucius "He who rides two horses in the same race seldom saddles a winner."
There is nothing in the OP’s posts about the Solicitor for the Executor “advising” both the executor and the beneficiaries (such that would give rise to an inappropriate conflict of interest scenario). The Solicitor here clearly acts for the executor and has adopted a position consistent with his/her duties towards the executor/estate. His/her position on the written debt acknowledgement on the back of the will to the effect that it does not form part of the will is a statement of fact.
The solicitor acts in accordance with the instructions of the executor and it is clear here that the solicitor is so doing. The Solicitor has no duty towards the beneficiaries.
The beneficiaries are free to seek their own legal advice.
Last edited:
When you say that the solicitor acts in accordance with the instructions of the executors, are you saying that even if the solicitor advises them that the debt is not legally part of the will , he can't just leave it sitting in his office indefinitely, that surely the executors job is to carry out the legal instructions on the will and if they don't agree with it they should step aside and then challenge it themselves, that you can't as they say have it both ways?
Ultimately the responsibility lies with the executor. The solicitor can only advise. I’m sure the solicitor will have given the appropriate advice. But in the end it’s the executor who is 100% in the driving seat. Alas. The solicitor advises the executor and acts according to their instructions.
Sorry to keep asking questions, just like to be prepared, so if the executors say they are not going to send the will forward until the beneficiaries agree to the debt being paid or unless we reached a compromise with them, the will can be left indefinitely , with the only other alternative being to get them removed, which as you say is an expensive process? And then they could challenge the will if they were no longer executors,( that also comes out of the estate)