The Party's Over - Tackling Executor Delays In The UK

• Published date: 02 November 2022
• Subject Matter: Family and Matrimonial, Wills/ Intestacy/ Estate Planning
• Law Firm: Withers LLP
• Author: Ms Rosalind Russell

The recent decision of Totton v Totton is food for thought for beneficiaries who have found themselves stuck in the middle of the estate administration process - and for executors who are keeping them there.

Many people have heard of the 'executor's year' - the idea that an executor should be given a year from the date of death to wrap up the estate administration - but this is a guideline, not a rule. What can be surprisingly difficult is forcing executors to deliver up your share of the estate.

The Totton family's situation is an extreme one but might prove a wake-up call for executors who show blatant disregard for their obligations.

Background

The two claimants, Hollie Totton and Daniel Washer, are the grandchildren of the late Hazel Totton. The defendant, wedding planner Mark Totton, is their uncle (Hazel's surviving son).

Hazel passed away in July 2019. She named Mark as her executor. She divided her estate in half: 50% to Hollie and Daniel between them, and 50% to Mark. Mark duly obtained a grant of probate on 27 November 2019. Most of the value in Hazel's estate was tied up in her home, which Mark sold on 7 April 2020.

On 31 July 2020 - already over a year since Hazel's death, and almost four months since he sold the house- Hollie and Daniel's solicitors wrote to Mark seeking information about the estate. They wrote again in November 2020 and February 2021, asking Mark to administer and distribute the estate. Mark did not reply to any of these three letters. Daniel also texted his uncle but, likewise, received no response.

Not having heard, on 12 April 2021 Hollie and Daniel applied to Court (under Part 64.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules) to progress the estate administration.

In March 2022, the judge ordered Mark to give Hollie and Daniel a full inventory of the estate assets and an account of what he had done with them so far. The order made clear that 'Wrongful refusal to provide the information is contempt of court and may render the respondent liable to be imprisoned, fined or to have his assets seized.'

Mark failed to provide any information. Hollie and Daniel therefore applied for him to be found in contempt of court.

Result

Two (or arguably three) hearings followed. The first, where Hollie and Daniel's application was heard, took place in Mark's absence - he simply did not...