Seeking Permission To Distribute Deceased Estate In Absence Of The Residuary Beneficiaries’ Agreement

When a person passes away, their estate will be administered in accordance with their Will, if they had made one, or in accordance with the rules of intestacy. This process involves collecting assets, settling liabilities, and distributing what remains to the beneficiaries named in the Will.

Testators who wish for the majority of their estate to be inherited by specific persons, often children or spouses, will commonly elect to name them as residuary beneficiaries. Residuary beneficiaries are entitled to the “residue” of the estate, being the portion left after payment of all debts, taxes, expenses, and any specific gifts. In most cases, the residue represents the bulk of the estate, making these beneficiaries central to its distribution. Before distributing the estate, the personal representatives must seek the residuary beneficiaries’ approval of the proposed Estate Accounts. This ensures transparency, prevents future disputes, and confirms agreement on final figures before completing the administration process. Any distribution without the residuary beneficiaries’ approval, therefore, exposes the personal representative to a claim being brought against them in the event the residuary beneficiaries later disagree with the formulation of the estate accounts.

Case background

The administrator in this case faced difficulties distributing the Deceased’s estate as she was unable to obtain the residuary beneficiary’s approval. The Deceased’s Will provided that her entire estate was first left to her husband, provided he survived her by 28 days. As he predeceased her, this gift failed, and the Will’s substitute provisions applied. In the alternative, the Will directed that three grandchildren receive fixed pecuniary legacies and the whole residue of the estate passed to a fourth grandchild—the Defendant. If that residuary gift failed, the residue was to be divided equally between two of the grandchildren named in the pecuniary legacies. In the circumstances, with both named executors deceased and the primary gift ineffective, the estate was to be administered by the court-appointed administrator, being the Claimant, applying the substitute provisions to distribute the pecuniary legacies and then the residue. Difficulties began once the administrator had wound up the estate and sought to distribute the residue to the Defendant.

Following the Deceased’s death, the administrator repeatedly contacted the Defendant in order to distribute the estate. Initial letters requested identity documents for anti-money laundering checks and explained her entitlement to approximately £200,000. Despite sending several letters and emails, the Defendant refused to cooperate, alleging family misconduct and asserting there was “nothing in the will” for her.

After obtaining probate, the Administrator confirmed the balance due to the Defendant; however, the Defendant continued to refuse to cooperate. Even after being offered options to claim or disclaim the funds, the Defendant remained unresponsive. The Administrator therefore applied to the Court seeking directions to distribute the Deceased’s estate to the substitute residuary beneficiaries on the assumption that the Defendant had disclaimed her share.

The Court considered whether the Defendant’s prolonged refusal to engage amounted to a disclaimer of her residuary gift. In order to reach a decision, the Court noted the following:

The Court noted the presumption that a gift vests unless expressly disclaimed and that repudiation must be clear. In this case, the Defendant’s lack of correspondence could not amount to a disclaimer. The Court declined to rule definitively on the disclaimer but appreciated that the administrator was effectively in a state of limbo. Instead, the Court made a Benjamin order, permitting distribution on the basis that the defendant had disclaimed, while preserving the Defendant’s right to claim later against the substitute residuary beneficiaries, thereby protecting the administrator from liability.

Comment

This case demonstrates the Court taking a pragmatic approach by allowing the Deceased’s estate to be distributed without further delay, whilst preserving the Defendant’s right to seek her share of the estate at a later date. The case provides useful guidance and an example of action an administrator/executor can take in the event of an impasse.