When co-executors disagree, the starting legal position is that they must act jointly, which means one executor generally cannot push through a decision the others object to. Most disputes can still be resolved informally through clear communication, mediation, or a deed of appointment, and only the more serious deadlocks need to go to court for directions or, in the worst cases, the removal of an executor.
Written by Simon Jenkins, Curtis Legal LLP (Firm SRA No. 450129, Simon Jenkins SRA No. 167489). Call us on 0800 214 216 for a same-day callback.
Common Causes of Disagreement Between Co-Executors
Being named as co-executors in a will doesn’t guarantee co-executors will see eye to eye, particularly when grief, long-standing family dynamics, and real financial decisions collide. The most frequent flashpoints we see include:
- Selling the family home versus keeping it. One executor, often also a beneficiary who grew up in the house, wants to retain it or let a relative live there, while another wants it sold promptly to realise its value for the estate.
- How assets should be valued. Disagreement over whether to accept an estate agent’s valuation, get a second opinion, or wait for a better market, can stall the administration for months.
- The pace of administration. One executor wants the estate wound up quickly; another is cautious about creditor claims, tax clearance, or simply isn’t making time for the role.
- Personal grievances that predate the death entirely, where the role of executor becomes a proxy battleground for an unrelated family rift.
- Disagreement over expenses, such as whether funeral costs, professional fees, or an executor’s own expenses claimed against the estate are reasonable.
The Legal Position: Executors Must Generally Act Jointly
Where a will appoints more than one executor, the default rule is that they hold the role jointly and must act unanimously on significant decisions, such as selling property, distributing assets, or signing off estate accounts. A single executor cannot simply overrule the others and proceed alone, even if they’re convinced they’re right and the delay is frustrating beneficiaries. There are some day-to-day matters a single executor can usually handle without the others, such as routine correspondence, but anything affecting the estate’s assets or its distribution needs agreement. GOV.UK’s guidance on applying for probate confirms that where more than one executor is named, they generally need to act together, or formally agree for power to be reserved to the others.
This joint-action rule exists for good reason: it protects beneficiaries from one executor acting unilaterally against the interests of the estate, but it also means that even a single obstructive co-executor can bring the whole administration to a standstill if they choose to.
Practical Steps to Resolve a Deadlock
Open communication, properly documented
Many disputes between co-executors are really disputes about information, not substance. A clear written summary of the estate’s assets, liabilities, and the decisions outstanding, shared with every executor, often resolves more disagreements than people expect, simply by taking the dispute out of memory and assumption and putting it on paper.
Mediation
Where straightforward communication hasn’t worked, a trained mediator can help executors (and often beneficiaries too) reach a workable compromise without the cost, delay, and permanent damage to family relationships that litigation tends to cause. Mediation is confidential, non-binding until an agreement is actually reached, and considerably cheaper than a court application.
A deed of appointment or deed of retirement
If one co-executor is willing to step back, a deed of retirement allows them to formally resign the role, provided at least one executor (or a trust corporation) remains, or a replacement is appointed. This is often the simplest fix where one executor is obstructive, disengaged, or simply doesn’t want the burden, and the others are willing to carry on without them.
Seeking directions from the court
Where executors genuinely cannot agree on a specific point, for example how an asset should be valued or whether a particular expense is proper, any executor can apply to the court for directions. This doesn’t remove anyone from office; it simply asks a judge to resolve the specific point of disagreement so the administration can continue. It’s a more proportionate step than removal where the underlying relationship between the executors isn’t otherwise broken down.
When Removing a Co-Executor Becomes Necessary
Removal is the last resort, reserved for situations where an executor is obstructing the administration altogether, cannot be contacted, has a conflict of interest, or has behaved in a way that puts the estate’s assets or the beneficiaries’ interests at risk. The court will not remove an executor simply because the others find them difficult to work with; there generally needs to be evidence that continuing with them in place is harmful to the proper administration of the estate.
The court process for removing an executor typically involves an application under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, asking the court to remove the existing executor and, usually, to appoint a substitute in their place. This is a formal, evidenced court application, not something achieved by agreement among the other executors alone, and it tends to be costly and time-consuming, which is exactly why mediation and deeds of retirement are worth exhausting first wherever an obstructive executor can be persuaded to cooperate with a lower-conflict exit.
How This Differs From a Beneficiary’s Dispute With the Executors
A dispute between co-executors is a different animal from a dispute brought by a beneficiary against the executors as a group. In a co-executor dispute, the disagreement is internal to the people running the estate, and the aim is usually to get the administration moving again. A beneficiary’s dispute, by contrast, typically alleges that the executors collectively have failed in their duties, for example by delaying unreasonably, mismanaging assets, or distributing incorrectly, and it’s the beneficiary, not a fellow executor, bringing the challenge. The legal remedies can overlap, including an application to the court, but the starting grievance and who is on which side of it are quite different, and that distinction often shapes which approach, mediation, directions, or removal, is actually appropriate.
Preventing Disputes Before They Start
Where possible, executors should agree a simple set of ground rules early: how decisions will be made, how often they’ll update each other, and what to do if they can’t agree. Keeping a written record of every significant decision, and why it was made, protects all the executors if a beneficiary later queries the administration, and it also makes it much easier to show a court, if it ever comes to that, that an executor has acted reasonably throughout.
