An executor is a fiduciary, breach of fiduciary duty can be actionable in civil court.

No. There are no laws to keep someone honest. Character does.

When I handled Mother's estate, the first job was to provide every heir with a copy of the will. Your state laws may spell out the obligations in your state, there may be variations.

Well Bossy, ironically I’m going through a similar situation in that I have a sister who is the executer of our mother’s estate. Recently, we’ve had many conversations regarding the property she left us.

In our situation, my Mother had all the terms for the Trust laid out in her will and while my sister is able to make all the primary decisions about how the trust is managed, the will has made it very clear as to how the proceeds from the trust are to be disbursed. What I’ve learned through our own journey is that legally, the Executor has some very strict rules to follow, one being notification and accountability to the beneficiaries. However, if the Executor was assigned through Probate, the laws could be different, or the laws could be state specific as well. In our case, the Trust has a lawyer who is helping the Executor navigate through the process. To her credit, she has also been extremely transparent.

Because there are so many in’s and out’s to it, you really need to speak with an attorney and I hope you do. I know it can be costly but you deserve to know what your rights are. It’s shameful if what you describe is happening to you and oh so so wrong.

ETA: Have read the comments thus far and yes, we each got a copy of the will as stated AND yes, my sister has mentioned the Fidiciary responsibilities as well.

' Are there laws that keep executors honest?' Of course, if you have

laws against stealing, fraud, etc. (which of course, you do). Good advice here....

Sadly, the relatives that I have survived had no wills or no disputable wills b/c they had little to nothing, except for the billionaire uncle who is apparently still living, ha. I don’t have any experience in this regard. I was just wondering if there was room for hanky panky. And apparently, little to no room. That’s good.

I deleted the rest as TMI.

thanks for info about executor accountability.

Your mother didn't have the right to specify the ultimate disposition of her husband's remains or to supersede his wishes. His right only and it was his right to even change his mind during his lifetime if he'd agreed orally with her to do something specific. Legally, oral (non-written) post-death instructions are as if they didn't exist. Everyone has the opportunity to put their wishes in writing, reasonable and do-able instructions are binding on trustees/executors. Failing that, the standard is to do what's prudent and reasonable under the circumstances.

Thanks Elmer, I deleted that part but I wanted to say I hold no animosity whatsoever to her husband’s relatives. And they handled affairs reasonably, respectfully and practically. They were kind to my Mom and included her on their holidays. Just a little sad b/c they were inseparable in life.

It's a good reminder that everyone needs to discuss their wishes with family and perhaps to put it into writing and shared. A document may not be enforceable, and it should never be in the actual will (which may not be read until well after a funeral). But the more people who know your wishes, the better chance they will be followed.

Thanks bossy for stating that you deleted something. That's the most polite approach.

The normally positive and optimistic me usually has low expectations of others in situations like this. If I don't know them very well, and sometimes even if I do, I accept that people may act and decide in ways I myself wouldn't choose. Can't avoid it, no reason to react negatively. But I understand what you're saying. If your mother was happy in her lifetime, then nothing else matters. Everyone has different beliefs but to me, dead is dead. I know I have to ultimately decide where I want to be, if anywhere, and it's something I'm completely indifferent about.

I think the passing of Mrs Bush made me think about this. Her plans included hymns to be sung, by whom, who’d be pallbearers, how many eulogies and by whom, Etc. I had no idea people went into such detail, I guess you do if VIP.

I don't think it's that unusual. People who don't die unexpectedly often pass along to family members any preferences they have for their ceremony. It's an extension of choosing a plot location vs cremation and disposition of the ashes.

I was executor of my mother's estate, and of course had her list of beneficiaries and the amount she wanted each to have. What had to be kept in mind was, hopefully there would be enough left out of the estate to keep her wishes. That is, after funeral expenses, and the house was sold, after the auction of the household contents, the sale of the car, lawyer's fees, and any outstanding debts were paid, what was leftover had to be enough to cover the bequests. Thankfully in my case there was.

Do you know for sure your case was different or the executor really did pocket the money.

sushipup, a "reading of the will" event is something that mostly only happens in movies. It's rarely a dramatic event.

Executors/trustees and often principal heirs almost always have copies of wills/trusts long before someone dies. Because actions need to be taken immediately following a death and it's those documents in hand that authorize the person so acting. In my own case, when we completed our estate planning documents, the lawyer said "copies should be sent to your kids. Do you want to do that or we can for you." We had pdfs and sent them to everyone concerned. We'd spoken to them in advance (they discussed and decided themselves which kid we should name to act on behalf of the others as the prime trustee/executor, etc.) so it was a non-event.

Putting funeral and mortal remains instructions into a will is perfectly proper and often done.

Schoolhouse_gw, if you were addressing me, nobody pocketed any $. I was just curious whether it’d be easy to do. Apparently not. Good!

You are correct, Elmer, but many people 'hide' things like wills and instructions and often the family doesn't find the instructions until after funeral plans are completed.

Just because you are well organized does not mean that other folks are so prepared or even have all the correct info.

And I was never speaking of a mythic 'reading of the will'. I was referring to family actually looking at it.

(I took care of my mother in the last years before she died at 95. When she had a new CA will and trust drawn up after she moved to Monterey from AZ, I sent copies to all 3 of my brothers. Included was a list of items that each was to get, almost all sentimental things. I was to get Mother's jewelry, none very expensive. My SIL, a CPA, never spoke to me again after she read that. No great loss for me.)

sushi, for me, someone who gets in a huff over something so petty, or even something not petty but outside of the control of the people concerned, isn't worth having a relationship with. She did you a favor, as you said.

I had a relative who had strained relationships with most of the family. When they died, there was an attempt in the will to jack everyone around with what was or wasn't left and to whom. It was as expected and no one permitted themselves to be rattled by it. It's a legacy, all right, just not as intended. The death was a joyous occasion because almost everyone welcomed this person's exit from our lives.

Oh, okay.

It is a beautiful day in Houston so I dont know why I’m thinking these morbid thoughts. We had a relative who manipulated her needy relatives into doing whatever she wanted with promises of her belongings after she died. The irony is that she died unexpectedly and intestate. A ne’er-do-well caretaker took most of the items of value and the rest went to trash. The surviving relatives were left feuding over the goods that were long gone. What a legacy!

You might find my story interesting ......

My MIL died, while she was living with her boyfriend. The boyfriend kept everything until two grand daughters flew in, charging $10k expenses as representatives to the will. Met with the boyfriend, gained his cooperation, divvied everything up, per the will minus their "expenses". They sent us a check and a letter telling my DH he shouldn't have received anything(this was HIS MOTHER) and thought he should give his distribution to the two grands "or" donate his share to a charity. Note: the grands weren't in the will, their deceased mother was. They took her share. The boyfriend was their mothers biological father, who had recently reconnected after 40 years apart. We thought he should have kept the inheritance.

All sorts of things can and do go on. We didn't care one way or the other. Thought the attitude of the grands was comical/interesting. :0) A story to add to my repertoire.

To clarify to any who became confused: The deceased woman/my MIL, had a daughter w/ her boyfriend, the daughter grew up, married, and had 2 children, her grands felt entitled to the grandmothers distribution to their mother/the named executor of the will

There was a spinster aunt that put two nephews in a race for her desirable lake cabin. She would ask for maintenance help with insinuations that cabin would ultimately be theirs. Both nephews spent equal amount of time helping, but other nephew inherited cabin, no explanations. The nephew that I know became very bitter that he didn’t get it. Part of me was sad for him but the other part of me snickered that he got what he deserved for his less than noble motivation. He is an average decent guy but does the absolute minimum to qualify as ‘decent’. But I guess that’s still better than being an outright scoundrel. It has been decades and nobody can mention aunt or cabin-owning nephew, ha.

when it’s will reading time, greed rears its ugly head in the most unlikely people.

Nicole: what is unclear is was the MIL’s daughter deceased causing the the grands to feel entitled?

I agree bossy. The grands were NOT entitled to anything. They were NOT in the will. There were three surviving children of this woman, who were in the will, who should have split it 3 ways. All 3 chose to step aside and let the boyfriend keep everything...until a check arrived, we had no idea these grands had stepped in.

It's my husbands family. His mother had 4 children by 3 different men. It seemed to confuse everyones loyalties. Makes for some interesting stories tho. :0)

As far as I know, grandchildren, unless specifically named in the will, get nothing. If a child predeceases a parent, the estate is divided among any other surviving children.. My MIL and my DH assumed that if my DH dies before my MIL that our kids would get my DH's share of the estate when MIL dies. Not so. My MIL amended her will which now specifically names her 4 grandchildren and whatever she has decided that they inherit. This may very well be state/province specific.

blfenton, indeed this can vary considerably from state to state and your generalization about grandchildren isn't the case in certain circumstances, depending on which relatives are alive at the time of the particular death. A minority of US states have community property law which can have an effect, the others don't. There is a federal uniform act which is a guide some states follow and others don't, so that's the starting point in some cases and not in many others.

You're in another country, with law originating from the UK. This wasn't my area of specialization but I suspect there aren't many similarities between BC/Canada and US rules.

Even for those who die tragically early in life, there's no excuse for not having the proper paperwork in place. It's especially true in my view for for anyone with children. In the US, having a living trust in place instead of a will, which does the same thing, can save heirs thousands and tens of thousands of dollars of useless administrative costs by avoiding probate.

DH and I learned valuable lessons years ago with the execution of wills in our families. Real estate, money, investments and insurances were all spelled out and in proper order. Some did not like their share but the executors followed it to the letter. The problems were with the smaller personal property. Jewelry, furnishings and photographs that were not spelled out and were picked over by the family. This is where the fangs came out. So ugly!

No laws in PA to ensure the executor is actually disbursing as the will directs. As my father's executor, I kept my siblings up to date about how much $$ was in each account and ultimetly divided into thirds. If I opted not to disburse the correct amount, they could get an court order to force me produce financial records. I guess this is why you choose a TRUSTED family member or friend to be the executor.

I forgot to add to my first reply that the lawyer had drawn up a copy of the list of beneficiaries and the amounts to be given to each person named as a beneficiary. I duly delivered said documents because there was also a separate form which they had to sign after receiving them, even if they were teens, and given back to the lawyer. That is when things could have gotten a little dicey when one saw the other get a higher amount, but luckily my family is pretty laid back. So I think. I never heard any backlash anyhow.

"No laws in PA to ensure the executor is actually disbursing as the will directs. " but

"If I opted not to disburse the correct amount, they could get an court order to force me produce financial records"

You've contradicted yourself. If there were no laws directing the conduct of a fiduciary, there would be no basis to get a court order. I'm a CPA, not a lawyer, but there most certainly are laws, whether state or federal, that apply to the conduct of anyone anywhere having fiduciary responsibilities to others.

It's not just about money and who gets it, wills/trusts have a variety of directives that need to be followed. Unless the assets are minor or heirs are few and their entitlements clearly understood, non-professional executors/trustees are best counseled and guided by a lawyer. It's often the lawyer the decedent used for estate planning that fills this role but not necessarily so.

Another word of warning to those planning their wills. If you state a figure, as in "$20,000 to each of my three children, $5000 to loyal chauffeur Donald", suppose that at the time of your passing, you do not have that much money? So suppose you only have $50K, who gets what?

Much better to use percentages. "Each of my 3 children to get 31%, with 7% to go to my loyal chauffeur."

An uncle of DH's left him $10,000, but he died without anything and on Medicaid. DH and his cousins had a good laugh on that one.

If there is a will and an Executor -- the will has to be filed in court. Sometimes that doesn't happen and so an Executor could stiff a caretaker and probably get away with it.

"If there is a will and an Executor -- the will has to be filed in court."

Not true. The creation of what's called a Living Trust takes the place of a will (for management of assets, the handling of income and expenses and the disposition of property) and nothing gets filed with a probate court. In such cases, that person's will is short and sweet and includes something to the effect of "if there are assets I forgot to put into my living trust, put them into my living trust".

I believe the use of a living trust and avoidance of probate occurs in most states but I'm not certain if that's the case in all states.

There are some lawyers who visit this forum occasionally, their comments would be helpful in discussions like this.

My grandmother had 3 children. One pre-deceased her. She never updated her will so the original will stated everything was to be divided between her 3 children. Since one was deceased, 5 grandchildren got their mother's 1/3 share of the estate. None of the other grandchildren got anything because it went to our mother and aunt, as planned.

I think that's normal, though, right? My mom died and my grandparents say their assets will go half to my uncle and a quarter to myself and my brother.

Chi, you are right. It is "per stirpes" or some such legal term. It just means that the inheritance trickles down the chains, whether certain people were predeceased or not.

I agree from limited experience that easily tracked assets are most likely to not be tampered with, but it's the little things that are easier to pocket or hide that probably disappear without ever being reported. For instance, one of my friend's fathers had dementia and lived alone, as a result he had the inclination to hide money all over his house. He had had some medical problems at one point and the relative who came to stay with him found something like $4000 tucked away in various places around his house at that time. A few years later when he died, one child went in and cleaned the house out before the others could get there. No cash ever turned up? Yeah right.

Per stirpes means by branches/roots. It's a concept meaning, in a broad sense, per branch at the next level of descendants in the group below the decedent. And with descendants of any one descendent in aggregate taking the place of a no longer living person at the level above, etc. As chi described, she and her brother form one group to receive one-half in place of their mother, splitting the estate 50-50 with chi's uncle.

However, the law provisions for per stirpes divisions don't apply at all if the decedent has a recognized living trust or will that does something differently. Chi's grandmother apparently prefers to have an equal split among her own children or their children in their place if a child has died. That's common in the absence of familial relationship problems. Chi's grandmother in a will or living trust could have alternatively decided to leave everything to her and nothing to her uncle or brother. That wouldn't follow the per stirpes concept but is perfectly permissible.

One of my relatives, fairly well off, had remarried a younger woman. He consulted an attorney and drew up the usual paperwork: financial and health care POAs designating his wife, and both a will and a revocable trust. It turned out that the trust was never funded -- assets were never transferred into the trust. The reason, according to the wife, was vaguely attributed to "taxes". At some point in time, possibly as he was developing dementia, all of his accounts and assets were made joint with his spouse. At the time of his death, then, all of the distributions directed in his trust and in his will to his children were not made because it all belonged to her (I should mention that she was, on paper, only left with the house, cars, and all the furnishings). A significant portion of what should have been left to his children was redirected to her relatives.

Just to illustrate how one's intentions can go unfulfilled.

No, rae, I think that's an example of how a gold-digger with serious intent to take advantage of a vulnerable oldster can be enabled to be successful when an attorney is inept. The lawyer's job wasn't done until whatever transfers or title changes necessary had been made.

Suing to reverse such actions that take advantage of an oldster when not of sound mind, when earlier executed but not completed documents are available, are often successful (though often ugly too).

A common provision in these documents, at least in my state, is a list of all assets and a statement to the effect of "This list of assets that I/we own as of this date are hereby transferred to the trust and shall be regarded as owned by the trust and not us NO MATTER WHAT TITLE OR NAMES ARE USED FOR THESE ASSETS (I added the caps). It is further my/our intent that any future assets I/we acquire, no matter how titled nor in whose names they appear, shall be deemed contributed to this trust immediately and without exception, unless an amendment to this agreement for a particular asset states otherwise. "

Either way, the individual's wishes are insured and are not changeable unless the older document is revoked in writing and a new one entered into

My MIL had only investments and personal belongings when she died. All the investments were made POD (pay on death) to her children. My mother had done this for my brother and me. As soon as the death certificates were sent to the holders of the investments, checks were mailed and the cash distributed evenly. Her personal belongings were given to whomever wanted them, family and friends. No probate, no arguments, no hurt feelings. We're all still friends. My spouse and I have done the same for our children.

You haven't discovered a big secret and the greatest thing since sliced bread, norar. I'll leave it at that, just to say that the approach you describe (along with the similar joint tenancy with right of survivorship) can lead to problems and unexpected outcomes. AND probate. If the person is married, or if there are are more than a minor amount of assets involved, or real estate owned, see a lawyer or go to a legal aid society for proper help at a reduced cost.

Elmer: I am not familiar with the legal terms, but I am saying no one checked up on me to ensure that I distributed the estate equally to my 2 siblings. I understood my role as executor and provided my siblings with all the accounting documents (my choice). My attorney was certainly involved in the estate's responsibility to file estate taxes, but he did not verify that I calculated and distributed correctly. I thought the OP asked who ensures that the executor is doing their job?

What are "assets"? DH is one of four sons. All were named equally as executors, but when daddy died State Law said Only ONE is legally in charge. It went to the eldest. My MIL died a month later. As we sat around after the funeral household items were divvied up. I suggested each grand-child might want a Christmas ornament..from there her decorations were quickly dispersed to housekeepers, friends etc. It wasn't until a few weeks later when we were prepping for an estate sale I was told in the will my MIL GAVE ME all her holiday decorations. She knew I admired them so. Much was GONE..given away.. Not that it mattered I did get the items I most wanted but still it grates on me that I did't know, wasn't told before things started getting dispersed. My husband was never given a copy or heard a "reading of the will". Don't count or assume anything is my advise. State LAWS only get you so far. If no one cares that they are being followed, they might not be.

arcy_gw -- That's really sad. I understood that every person mentioned in the will received a copy of the will. Did your husband receive a copy?

edited: Oh -- that was dumb -- you said he didn't get a copy -- but he should have.

ratherbesewing, communication and honesty are what ensures the job is done properly. Your attorney or an accountant could have provided a measure of oversight if that had been desired and that's done when a will is probated or with large estates. Otherwise, respect for the decedent's wishes and an honest personality are the prereqs for a good trustee/executor. A dishonest or financially needy family member isn't the right choice for the job.

There are laws dealing with stealing and embezzlement and these would apply in the case of a fiduciary taking funds or assets that don't belong to them. Honest mistakes or incompetence not involving unauthorized personal gain, a different story.

arcy, the situation you describe includes several mistakes and self-caused problems. The short answer is nothing prevents people without professional knowledge, and who don't get qualified advice, from making mistakes. Some can matter, some don't.