What Happens When Co-Executors Disagree in Kentucky?
Parents sometimes name two or more children as co-executors, thinking it will keep things fair. In practice, co-executor arrangements often create more problems than they solve. When co-executors disagree about how to administer the estate — whether to sell the family home, how to value assets, which creditors to pay, or how quickly to distribute — the estate can grind to a halt. Kentucky law provides a framework for resolving these deadlocks, but it is rarely simple.
How Co-Executors Must Act Under Kentucky Law
When a will names multiple executors, Kentucky law generally requires them to act jointly. Under KRS 395.095, co-personal representatives must act by majority agreement. This means if three co-executors are appointed, two must agree before any action can be taken. If only two co-executors are appointed and they disagree, neither can act unilaterally — creating a complete deadlock.
This requirement applies to virtually every significant estate administration action: selling real property, distributing assets, paying claims, hiring professionals (attorneys, accountants, appraisers), and filing tax returns. A single dissenting co-executor can block action that the others believe is necessary and appropriate.
Common Sources of Disagreement
Co-executor disputes typically arise in predictable contexts. The most common is disagreement over the family home — one co-executor wants to sell promptly, while the other wants to keep the property (often because they or another family member is living in it). Disputes also arise over the valuation of closely held business interests, whether to accept or reject creditor claims, the speed of estate administration, and whether to hire professional help or manage the estate informally.
Underlying these practical disputes are often deeper family conflicts — long-standing sibling rivalries, perceived favoritism, and disagreements about the decedent’s intentions that the will does not clearly resolve.
Breaking the Deadlock: Court Intervention
When co-executors cannot agree, any interested party — including either co-executor or any beneficiary — can petition the court for instructions. The court can order the co-executors to take specific action (such as selling property), resolve the dispute by approving one co-executor’s proposed course of action over the other’s, or remove one or both co-executors and appoint a neutral third party.
Court intervention is effective but expensive. The legal fees come out of the estate, reducing the amount available for distribution to beneficiaries. For this reason, mediation is often a better first step.
Removal of a Co-Executor
Under KRS 395.150, the court can remove a personal representative who wastes or mismanages estate assets, fails to perform their duties, or is otherwise unsuitable. In the co-executor context, removal may be appropriate when one co-executor is obstructing legitimate estate administration without good reason, acting in their own interest rather than the estate’s interest, or refusing to communicate or cooperate with the other co-executor. The removed co-executor’s authority terminates, and the remaining co-executor (or a court-appointed replacement) proceeds alone.
Planning to Avoid Co-Executor Problems
The best solution to co-executor disputes is prevention. If you are drafting a will and considering naming co-executors, think carefully about whether the people you are naming can actually work together. Consider naming a single executor with a successor if the first cannot serve. If you do name co-executors, include provisions in the will for resolving disputes — such as a mandatory mediation clause or a provision designating one co-executor as the tiebreaker on specific categories of decisions.
If you are a co-executor or beneficiary dealing with a co-executor dispute in Kentucky, contact Buckles Law Office at (859) 225-9540.
