A client recently sat in my office with a common goal. She has two adult children—a daughter in Manhattan who is a meticulous accountant and a son on Long Island who is a contractor, deeply familiar with the family’s properties. She wanted to name them both as co-executors of her will. On paper, it seemed perfect. A blend of financial acumen and practical knowledge. But as I often explain, the neat logic of a family org chart can unravel under the pressures of estate administration.
The impulse is understandable. Naming multiple children as co-executors feels fair, a way to avoid signaling preference. It can also be a strategic choice, designed to bring complementary skills to the table. Yet, this decision is one of the most consequential a person can make when drafting their will. It can either foster collaboration or sow the seeds of conflict that can stall an estate for months, or even years.
The Law and the Logic of Co-Executors
New York law permits the appointment of two or more executors. There is no statutory limit on the number of fiduciaries you can name to steward your legacy. When you name co-executors, you grant each of them the full legal authority to act on behalf of the estate. They share the same fiduciary duty—the highest standard of care under the law—to manage the estate’s assets prudently and in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
The idea is that two heads can be better than one. One executor might be an expert in finance, while the other understands the family business. Together, they provide a system of checks and balances. No single person has unilateral control over assets, which can offer protection against mismanagement. The workload is also shared. The responsibilities are significant—inventorying assets, paying debts, filing tax returns, and communicating with beneficiaries.
However, the law anticipates the primary risk of this arrangement: disagreement. What happens when co-fiduciaries cannot agree on a course of action—say, whether to sell the family home or how to value a piece of art? The default rule in New York is that co-executors must act jointly on most matters. They both need to sign the real estate contract, the check from the estate account, the tax return. One person cannot override the other. When they reach an impasse, the estate administration grinds to a halt.
When Collaboration Fails: The Risk of Deadlock
Deadlock. It’s the single greatest risk of a co-executor structure. I have seen it derail otherwise straightforward estate administrations, turning a family’s grief into a protracted legal battle. The dispute could be over something significant, like the sale price of a business, or something deeply personal, like the distribution of sentimental items.
When executors disagree, they have few options. They can try to negotiate a compromise. If that fails, the matter may end up before a judge in Surrogate’s Court. Under Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) § 706, a co-fiduciary can petition the court for direction when a disagreement prevents them from effectively administering the estate. The court can issue an order compelling action or even remove one or both executors if their conflict harms the estate.
This court intervention, however, comes at a cost. It depletes estate assets through legal fees and creates significant delays. More importantly, it can inflict lasting damage on family relationships. The courtroom is rarely a place where family harmony is restored. What began as a parent’s attempt to be fair can end in a public and painful conflict between siblings.
A More Deliberate Approach to Stewardship
Does this mean you should never appoint co-executors? Not necessarily. It means the decision must be intentional and well-structured, not just a default to avoid hurt feelings. If you are considering this path, we need to have a frank discussion about the personalities involved. Do your chosen executors have a history of collaboration and mutual respect? Can they communicate effectively, especially under stress?
If the answer is yes, we can build provisions into the will to mitigate the risk of deadlock. For example, the will can:
- Assign different responsibilities: One executor could be given authority over financial accounts, while the other manages tangible property. This requires careful drafting to avoid ambiguity.
- Designate a tie-breaker: You can name a third party—a trusted friend, a professional advisor, or a corporate trustee—who has the authority to make a final decision if the co-executors cannot agree.
- Allow for separate action: While the default is joint action, a will can specify that executors may act independently on certain matters. This is less common because it dilutes the “checks and balances” benefit, but it can be a useful tool in specific circumstances.
Often, a better approach is to name a single, primary executor and then name one or more successors in order of preference. This creates a clear line of authority and avoids the potential for conflict, while still ensuring there is a trusted person ready to step in if your first choice is unable or unwilling to serve. The person not named as executor can still be kept informed and consulted, but the ultimate decision-making authority rests with one individual.
Your will is the final instruction manual you leave for your family. Its goal is to create clarity, not conflict. Choosing the right fiduciary—or fiduciaries—is perhaps the most critical element of that manual. It’s a decision that deserves careful thought and an honest conversation.
If you are considering how to best structure the stewardship of your estate, a productive next step is to schedule a meeting to review your family dynamics and asset structure. Together, we can design a fiduciary plan that reflects your wishes and gives your legacy the greatest chance for a smooth and peaceful administration.
