Yes, he has the ability to do that. It allows him to get the estate the most for its assets. That will allow the beneficiaries to obtain more in the end.
That is up to the executor to decide. They can use any method they wish to do so, as long as the court approves. In most cases they want to sell as few things as possible.
Sure, but the other person doesn't have to keep it and can sell their share either to the executor or to a third party.
There is no set Maine executor fee. It is up to the executor and the court to decide a reasonable amount for a fee.
An heir does not have any authority over the distribution under a will. Once the estate has been filed for probate the executor is provided with that authority by the court. The executor can take suggestions about how the personal property should be divided and should take care to set personal feelings aside and be fair about the distribution. However, making the distribution of the estate is the executor's legal responsibility.
First, no one is an executor until the will has been allowed by the probate court and the court has appointed the executor. Until appointed by a court, an executor has NO power.Once appointed, the executor MUST follow the provisions of the will regardless of their personal feelings. The executor has no personal interest in the estate. They perform their responsibilities under the supervision of the probate court and will be held personally liable for any misbehavior.Every person has the right to decide what will happen to their property when they die. Those wishes are expressed in a will. Only a judge can modify the terms of a will after the testator has died..
This question has two potential answers depending upon whether the executor is the one renting the property or the beneficiary designated to receive it under the will is renting the property. If you mean rented by the executor, it may be at any time as soon as the will is probated and an executor is appointed to act. (Or an administrator if there is no will.) Most states have a statute taken from the Uniform Probate Code that gives the executor possession and control over every asset of the estate during administration of the estate even to the exclusion of beneficiarires who are designated to receive the property. During administration only the executor may rent it out, but the executor retains the discretion to decide if renting it is beneficial to the estate. Thus, even though an executor has the power to rent it out, he or she does not have to do so and cannot be forced to do do by a beneficiary unless a court orders it. If you mean rented by the ultimate beneficiary, the beneficiary cannot rent it out until the executor formally transfers the property from the estate to the beneficiary even if the will explicitly gives the house to that beneficiary. Once it is transferred, it is no longer part of the estate and the executor has no legal right to possession or control, therefore no right to rent it out or refuse to rent it out. The transfer to the beneficiary might have to wait until final settlement of the estate just to make sure that it does not have to be sold to pay for debts or expenses. On the other hand, if an executor is reasonably certain that it is not needed for that, the executor may in his discretion transfer the property before finalizing the estate. I believe it is best to transfer the house as quickly as possible during administration as long as it is clear that there are sufficient liquid assets to pay for everything. That way the executor is no longer responsible for the safety of the asset and he or she has a happy beneficiary.
Yes. A court can decide not to appoint the named executor if any interested party provides a compelling objection to the appointment. Also, the court can remove an executor and appoint a successor if it finds the executor is mishandling the estate, submits a resignation or dies while in office.
Its possible if the will states it and there is no state law that would prevent it.
Absolutely not. That would be a violation of law. One of the most sacred and ancient rights under common law systems is a person's right to decide how her property will be distributed after her death. The executor cannot change the last will and testament. Their legal obligation is to submit the will to the probate court and then follow its instructions to the letter if they are appointed as executor by the court. Until all that has taken place, the person named as executor has no legal authority whatsoever.In this case "fair" is to be judged solely from the perspective of the testator.
It has to be based on reality. They can't decide that a house is worth $1. They have to be able to demonstrate some reasonable estimation based on similarly valued items. In many cases an appraiser needs to be hired to estimate values of real estate, art objects and collectables. For run of the mill personal property, there are a number of software tools that could be used to provide estimates. Stocks and bonds have to be valued per the market on the date selected by the executor.
I would think that she cannot do what you are saying if there is a valid Will in place. So, Yes... contest it.
Yes, the executor is legally bound to fulfill all directions in the will. If an executor has a question about the legality of some particular direction (such as scattering cremated ashes in a place where it is not allowed), the executor has the right to file an action in the probate court for what is called "advice and directions". All beneficiaries will get notice of the action and have a right to be heard for or against the issue and the court will decide what the executor is to do.