Renton v Dresselhaus: A Cautionary Tale of Executor Disputes

When preparing a Will, many testators are drawn to the idea of appointing multiple joint executors.

It is, understandably, an attractive prospect. Appointing multiple trusted family members (especially amongst children) can spread the workload, provide checks and balances, and ensure that important decisions are made collectively. Many testators don’t wish for any of their loved ones to feel left out or mistrusted, and in blended families or where significant assets are involved, appointing all children equally may even appear to be the fairest option.

However, fairness and practicality are not always interchangeable.

The recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in Renton v Dresselhaus [2026] QSC 95 (Renton) provides a timely reminder of the risks associated with appointing joint executors who cannot work together. What began as an attempt to place the administration of an estate in the hands of family members ultimately resulted in all executors being removed, probate being revoked, and an independent administrator being appointed by the Court, resulting in significant legal costs and lengthy delays to the finalisation of the estate.

What do Executors do?

Beyond simply carrying out the deceased’s wishes, executors must identify and collect assets, pay liabilities, manage investments, deal with taxation matters, resolve claims against the estate and ultimately distribute assets to beneficiaries. Where multiple executors are appointed, these responsibilities must be exercised jointly under the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) (the Act).

Renton v Dresselhaus: What went wrong?

In Renton, the deceased appointed his four daughters as co-executors of a large and complex estate. The estate included real property, shares, trusts and business interests, and probate had already been granted. Disputes arose between the daughters regarding liabilities, asset valuations and equalisation calculations. The Court found that there was a lack of trust, cooperation and confidence between the executors and that the relationships had deteriorated to such an extent that it was causing significant inefficiencies and preventing the estate from being administered effectively.

The situation was further complicated by potential conflicts of interest involving two executors who also held directorships in a related entity connected with estate assets. These competing responsibilities raised concerns about whether decisions could be made impartially and in the best interests of the estate.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the ongoing disputes and lack of cooperation were adversely affecting the interests of beneficiaries. All four executors were removed pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the existing grant of probate was revoked, and an independent administrator was appointed to complete the administration of the estate.

Takeaway

Renton does not suggest that appointing joint executors is inherently problematic. There are clear advantages to appointing multiple executors, including the sharing of responsibilities and the involvement of beneficiaries and other interested parties who have a stake in the estate. Indeed, countless estates are administered successfully by joint executors who work cooperatively and efficiently to carry out the deceased’s wishes.

However, when considering how many executors to appoint, testators must carefully think of the dynamics and personalities of those they are appointing. Where executors disagree on how assets should be managed or distributed, progress can stop entirely. Assets may lose value while disputes continue. Taxation and regulatory obligations may become more difficult to satisfy. Beneficiaries can also find themselves waiting years for an inheritance that should have been distributed much earlier.

In relatively simple estates, this may cause inconvenience. In complex estates involving businesses, trusts or investment portfolios, the consequences can be much more serious.

How to avoid Executor conflict

Where a testator has concerns about conflict, there are some alternatives to simply appointing all children jointly.

The simplest option is to appoint one person as sole executor. This avoids the risk of deadlock between multiple executors and can make the administration of the estate more efficient. A sole executor does not need to obtain agreement from co-executors before making decisions, which can allow them to act more quickly and decisively.

However, appointing a sole executor also places a significant responsibility on one person. It may also create tension if other beneficiaries feel excluded from the decision-making process, particularly where the sole executor is one of several siblings or beneficiaries. For that reason, this option is often most suitable where the testator has a high level of confidence in one person’s judgment, availability and ability to act impartially.

Some Wills appoint multiple executors but expressly permit decisions to be made by majority rather than unanimously. While suitable only in certain circumstances (and not particularly enforceable, as the Act requires joint cooperation between Executors regardless), this approach can reduce the risk of administrative deadlock while still allowing multiple trusted individuals to be involved in the estate administration.

Finally, for larger estates, family businesses or situations involving existing family tensions, an independent or professional executor (such as a solicitor or accountant) may be appropriate.

Independent executors are particularly valuable where beneficiaries may not trust one another, where there are complex assets to manage, or where difficult decisions are likely to arise. They are generally less susceptible to personal disputes and to the personal dynamics that can affect family members and can assist in ensuring decisions are made impartially.

However, if an independent executor is acting in a professional capacity, such as a solicitor, it will usually increase the costs of administering the estate given the executor’s entitlement to commission.

What Renton means for you

The true lesson from Renton is not that testators should avoid appointing joint executors, but that executor appointments deserve careful and realistic consideration. While joint executors can provide accountability, shared expertise and mutual support, those benefits quickly disappear where mistrust, competing interests or longstanding family tensions exist.

Ultimately, the question of how many executors to appoint, and how they are to act, is answered only by careful and cautious consideration of each individual estate and its specific, unique circumstances. Before appointing joint executors, testators should carefully consider whether those individuals have the capacity, temperament and relationship necessary to work cooperatively for what may be years after their death.

Parents may hope that children will put aside their differences once they have died, united in a mutual grief. Unfortunately, Australian courts are bursting at the seams with cases that show how longstanding familial disputes often continue after death and sometimes intensify, especially when the parental “glue” holding the family unit together has passed away.

Benjamin Kett
Solicitor