What are the chances that Joe will refuse something Larlo wants later, to "make him pay"? I'd consider that. When selling the house a potential buyer wants a (reasonable, for the sakle of argument) repair to be made. Joe doesn't want to make them, but the other two brothers do. Will the repairs be made? Is Joe likely to engage in shenanigans like that if doesn't get his way now?

I can see why Betty chose her grandson to be executor. I recommend JJ hire an estate lawyer to help him with this and other questions that will surely arise until the estate is settled.

Joe pays up front for the party, and Bob if he wants to. Does not come out of estate. Joe is wrong. JJ has my sympathy.

I would just go ahead and pay for the party out of Joe and Bob's portion of the estate and document everything. This is such a trivial amount that it's hard to imagine that there would be any legal ramifications to doing this.

Anonymous wrote:The executor gets 6% for being executor. Do the other 2 know this? This disagreement re: the party is peanuts.

Money brings out the worst in people. And grief/money the very worst.

JJ should *and certainly can* can have the party. It's not so out-of-line that any legal consequence is going to come of it.

It you are also an heir to the estate, it's not worth taking the fee IMO since it gets taxed to you at regular income rates. Re:this party, I wouldn't worry about it. Being an executor is really a hassle.

It is $500. Just give in. It just doesn't matter.

Joe should pay for the party. Why deduct the cost from his portion of the estate? Let him pay it up front.

JJ could say, I think you should pay for the party, but if you want me to consult a lawyer I will, and that will cost more than the cost of the party.

Joe should pay for the party himself. If his brother wants to toss some cash in the brother should go ahead and do that. The estate does not pay for this.

JJ should consult a lawyer so he can tell his dad "The lawyer says the estate doesn't pay for a birthday party for a dead person at the dead person's house" and it will save your DH from looking like he hates his dad's mom.

No one should be making this much of a fuss over $500 unless the estate is only $1000, but it is what it is. Advice above is good.

If everyone agrees, the estate pays and the brother who has not agreed to the party gets and extra $175 or whatever when the final distribution is made. Sorry for your DH. Money brings out the worst in people. I was the executor of my mom's estate and some of use turned a blind eye on others who were taking things to which they were not entitled. Life is short and no good comes out of fighting over stuff like this.

JJ should pay for the party. He chose to have it and his brother is not in agreement. Its not that much money to argue over. Your husband sounds cheap.

The executor gets 6% for being executor. Do the other 2 know this? This disagreement re: the party is peanuts.

Money brings out the worst in people. And grief/money the very worst.

JJ should *and certainly can* can have the party. It's not so out-of-line that any legal consequence is going to come of it.

JJ should just tell Joe to pay for the party himself as this expense was not agreed upon by the other heirs to the estate.

Stupid stuff like this always happens after a death and over the inheritance. No big deal. Tell JJ to do nothing regarding the party (but refuse payment) and settle things as quickly as possible. Everyone will get over it.

A widow named Betty passed away at the age of 94, leaving an estate worth that consists includes about $200K in liquid assets/accounts and a paid-off home worth well over $800K. Betty's sole heirs were her three adult sons: Joe, Bob, and Larlo. Betty's will specified that her estate should be split equally between the three, and she named Joe's adult son, Joe Jr. ("JJ") as the executor.

Per Betty's instructions, JJ arranged a traditional church funeral with repast following, but due to circumstances beyond anyone's control Betty could not be buried at that time. Her ashes were instead buried a few months later, and a short graveside service was held, followed by a small reception at her home. JJ used estate funds to pay for all of these events. Meanwhile, for various reasons that are not in dispute, it is taking a while to wrap up the estate and get the house on the market. Also during this time, tensions have been building between Joe and Larlo about various issues unrelated to the estate, and it's gotten pretty bad.

Joe has decided to throw a party to honor Betty's 95th birthday and gather the family in her home one last time before it is sold. It's just a BBQ so nothing extravagant, but will probably end up costing at least $500. Bob is fine with it, but Larlo has a wedding that day and cannot attend. (Joe did not clear the date with anyone--he never does, that's just how he is.)

Now Joe is expecting the estate to pay for the party. Bob is fine with it, but Larlo is NOT fine with it. JJ doesn't really think a THIRD event is an appropriate estate expense, but it's a small amount of $ and if all of the beneficiaries were agreed he would have OK'ed it. But with Larlo's objection JJ doesn't feel he can. Now Joe is being a huge jerk and saying "well it's 2 against 1 so the estate pays." JJ doesn't know much about estate law but he's pretty sure that's not how it works. Now Joe has proposed that JJ have the estate pay for the party but "charge" it against their eventual proceeds only, not Larlo's. JJ's not sure if this is kosher but he is really pissed at his father for dragging him into this over an amount that his dad could cover out of pocket without blinking an eye. Clearly it's not about the money-- Joe is trying to make a point to Larlo about other things. The cost of involving a lawyer would be more than the party itself so there's no point in that.

What should JJ (aka my DH) handle this situation? Whatever happens he will make sure to scrupulously document and make sure everyone comes out equal in the end, but in the meantime ?????? Thanks so much for any advice!