I Named All Three Kids Co-Executors. That’s Fair, Right?

Estate Planning

Sep 29

"I have three kids, so I named all three of them as Co-Executors. That's fair, right?"

I understand the instinct.

Parents spend decades trying to treat their children equally.

If one child gets something, the others should get it too. If one child is included, no one wants another child to feel left out.

So when it comes time to prepare a Will, naming all of the children as Co-Executors can seem like the fairest approach.

No favorites. No hurt feelings. Everyone has an equal role.

But there's an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in that conversation:

Treating your children equally as beneficiaries doesn't necessarily mean giving them equal responsibility for administering your estate.

Those are two very different things.

Being Executor Is a Job

An Executor isn't receiving an honorary title.

The Executor, sometimes called the Personal Representative, is responsible for administering the estate after death.

Depending on the circumstances, that may involve locating and securing assets, dealing with banks and financial institutions, handling debts and expenses, working with attorneys and accountants, addressing tax matters, selling property, maintaining records, communicating with beneficiaries, and ultimately distributing the estate according to the Will.

Sometimes that process is relatively straightforward.

Sometimes it isn't.

Either way, selecting an Executor isn't really about deciding which of your children deserves the title.

It's about deciding who is best suited to do the job.

Equal Inheritance and Equal Responsibility Are Different Things

Suppose a parent has three children and wants everything divided equally among them.

There may be every reason to leave each child one-third of the estate.

That doesn't necessarily mean there is a good reason to require all three of them to administer it together.

Perhaps one child is particularly organized and good with financial matters. Another lives across the country and has a demanding job and young children. The third is perfectly responsible but has little interest in dealing with banks, accountants, attorneys, and paperwork.

Naming one of them as Executor doesn't give that child a larger inheritance.

It doesn't make that child more important.

And it doesn't necessarily mean the parent trusts the other children any less.

It gives that child a job.

More Executors Can Mean More Administration

Even when everyone gets along, naming multiple Co-Executors can make routine estate administration more cumbersome.

Probate documents and other paperwork may require multiple signatures. Financial institutions may have their own procedures for dealing with multiple fiduciaries, and some may not permit accounts to be handled in the manner the family expected.

Something that could otherwise require one person's attention may instead require coordinating two or three people.

That may mean getting three signatures on a document.

It may mean coordinating three schedules.

It may mean waiting for one sibling who lives several states away to respond before something can move forward.

None of those issues may sound particularly significant while everyone is sitting around a conference table signing estate planning documents.

They can feel considerably more significant to a family trying to administer an estate after a death.

Equal Authority Doesn't Always Mean an Equal Voice

Sometimes the concern isn't administrative at all.

It's the family.

Naming three children as Co-Executors may look like a way to ensure that everyone has an equal say.

But families don't always work that way.

One sibling may be more assertive. Another may avoid conflict. One may understand the finances better. Another may simply defer to whichever sibling speaks the loudest.

And disagreements that seemed unlikely when a parent was alive can look very different after that parent is gone.

Should the house be sold?

When?

For how much?

What happens to the personal property?

Which professionals should be hired?

How quickly should the estate be administered?

Giving three people the same title doesn't necessarily create three equal decision-makers.

Sometimes it simply carries existing family dynamics into the administration of the estate, at a time when those dynamics may already be under considerable stress.

“But They'll Keep an Eye on Each Other.”

I've also heard another reason for naming multiple Executors:

"That way, they'll keep an eye on each other."

I understand that instinct too.

Shared authority can provide some level of involvement by more than one person. But naming multiple fiduciaries doesn't guarantee meaningful oversight.

One Executor may take the lead while the others largely defer. Responsibilities can become blurred. A less assertive sibling may sign what the more assertive sibling puts in front of him or her. And having several people involved doesn't necessarily prevent a bad decision, or worse, from occurring.

I've seen estate administrations where family dynamics among fiduciaries created significant problems rather than preventing them.

If the primary reason for naming multiple Executors is a concern that one child shouldn't be trusted to act alone, I think that raises a more fundamental question:

Should that child be serving as an Executor at all?

“But I Don't Want Anyone to Feel Left Out.”

Often, this is the real concern.

A parent may already know which child is the most practical choice but worry about the message that naming that child sends to the others.

That's understandable.

But serving as Executor isn't a reward for being the favorite child, and not being named Executor isn't a punishment.

The children can still inherit equally.

They can still receive information about the administration.

And a parent can name successor Executors so that another child serves if the first choice is unable or unwilling to do so.

Choosing one child to handle the administrative work doesn't require choosing one child to favor.

Are There Times When Co-Executors Make Sense?

Certainly.

There can be circumstances where naming Co-Executors is appropriate. Two people may work particularly well together. The nature of the family or the assets may make shared responsibility desirable. There may be a specific reason why the person creating the Will wants more than one person involved.

But I generally don't recommend naming multiple people simply because there are multiple children.

If one person is capable, trustworthy, willing to serve, and able to communicate appropriately with the other beneficiaries, having one person responsible for the administration can avoid a number of practical problems.

The decision should be intentional.

There's a difference between:

"I've thought about how my children work together, and I have a particular reason for wanting them to serve together."

and:

"I have three kids, so I guess I should name all three."

The first is a planning decision.

The second may simply be an effort to avoid making one.

Fair Doesn’t Always Mean Identical

Parents naturally want to treat their children fairly.

But fair doesn't always mean identical.

You can leave your children equal shares of your estate while selecting one of them to handle the work of administering it.

Naming that child Executor doesn't give him or her a greater inheritance, a higher place in the family, or the ability to change what your Will says.