Feuding Executors. How bad could it be? Key v Key [2026]

A mother trusted her home and her share of the family business to her two adult children. She named them both as her executors [2] [3]. After four years of arguing the judge took the job away from both of them, and handed her estate to a professional [64].

By then the inheritance tax had gone unpaid. The interest on it had reached about £142,000, and it was still growing by £117.81 every day [6]. The brother and sister had run up £266,000 in legal costs between them [10]. The house had been valued at up to £2.5 million in 2022 [14]. By 2026 the court's expert put it at £1,650,000 [48].

This is Key v Key [2026] EWHC 2098 (Ch), decided by Master Clark and handed down on 14 August 2026.

1. What Happened

Grace Baillie Key died on 28 September 2022, aged 84. She left a will she had made in November 2014 [2]. It named her two adult children, Laura and Richard, as joint executors. They were also the only two people who would inherit anything [3].

The estate was substantial. The family home, Ebury Lodge in Hertfordshire, had a probate value of £2 million [5]. There were shares in the family business, Ebury Court Residential Home Limited, which the will split equally between them, plus personal belongings and a small life policy [5]. Draft accounts put the estate at just over £1.9 million after debts [6].

There was one problem, and both sides agreed on it. Laura and Richard were estranged [8].

It started within a week

Just over a week after their mother died, Laura's solicitors wrote to Richard. The letter accused him of shutting her out of the house and removing their mother's belongings. It attached a 14 point list of things she wanted confirmed, including that the cat would be fed [8]. Richard never replied to those letters. He did not answer the allegations in his court evidence either [8].

There was even an argument about whether to hold a funeral at all, or just a direct cremation. Laura eventually accepted that there could be a funeral service. She did not attend it [8].

In those same October letters, Laura asked for an independent professional to run the estate instead [12]. Richard suggested an independent firm of solicitors, BRM, and Laura instructed them [12]. Richard registered the death and used the government's Tell Us Once service. From the very start he also carried out the repairs and maintenance at the house [13].

By December 2022 the relationship had hardened further. After a row about whether Laura had been given a full set of keys to the Barn, she blocked the email addresses and phone numbers of Richard and his wife Lisa. She insisted that everything go through her solicitors [15].

The house that would not sell

In November 2022 the estate agents Savills valued the house at between £2,250,000 and £2,500,000 [14]. It went on the market in April 2023 at £2.5 million. There were a limited number of viewings and no offers at all [22].

Meanwhile the clock was running. On 28 March 2023 the inheritance tax fell due. There was no cash in the estate to pay it, so it went unpaid [20].

Richard wanted to take the house off the market and rent it out. That would bring in money for the bills and for mortgage payments of around £29,000 a year [27]. Laura refused. The lender would not allow the house to be let and wanted its mortgage repaid. The lender set that position out in writing to both of them. Richard carried on insisting that the house be rented [27].

Then, in August 2023, Richard did something that came back to haunt him. In response to Laura's refusal, he entered a caveat [29].

The judge later found there was no basis on which that caveat could be justified. Richard's own barrister did not try to argue otherwise [29]. The effect was exactly what it sounds like. No grant of probate could be obtained while the caveat stayed in place [56].

A formal valuation in July 2023 put the house at £2 million [28]. The asking price came down to £2 million, and the house sat on the market until May 2024 with no offers [32].

In September 2023 the solicitors, BRM, stopped acting. They were receiving conflicting instructions from the two of them. Their bill had been pushed up partly because they could not get positive instructions from Laura, and partly because they were copied into the siblings' emails [30].

Their father steps in

The mortgage arrears kept building. Richard says he paid £22,031.29 towards them in October 2023 [31]. In March 2024 the siblings' father, Rodney Key, paid £330,000 towards the arrears. That left £41,510.71 still owing [33]. In June 2024 the lender warned that it would start possession proceedings if the rest was not paid [36]. Richard says he then paid the whole outstanding £42,105.70 and cleared the mortgage [38].

By March 2024 both sides' solicitors had written to each other agreeing on a single point. These two could not work together as executors [34] [35]. Richard offered to buy Laura out and suggested mediation [37]. The mediation took place in November 2024 and failed [41]. In March 2025 Richard asked Laura to step down [41]. In July 2025 she issued a court claim to remove him [42].

Her claim listed twelve grounds. They included delay, moving into the house without paying rent, misrepresenting the property market, entering the caveat, forging her signature, and accessing her private health account [42]. Richard's answer was that he was still willing to administer the estate jointly. The estate was straightforward, he said, any disagreement could be settled by the court giving directions, and the parties could instruct solicitors to do what they could not do themselves [46].

There was more. The two of them were also litigating in the High Court over the family company [9].

2. The Law

The claim was brought under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That is the shorter court procedure used where the facts are not really in dispute. It meant all the evidence was written down. Nobody gave evidence from a witness box [11].

The power in question is described in the judgment simply as the power under section 50. It is the court's power to remove a personal representative and appoint someone else instead [49] [52].

The six point checklist for removing an executor

The judge took the governing principles from an earlier case, Harris v Earwicker [2015] EWHC 1915 (Ch), where Chief Master Marsh set them out at paragraph 9. That summary was quoted in full [49]. In short, it says this.

• Nobody has to be in the wrong. The court does not need to find fault. "The guiding principle is whether the administration of the estate is being carried out properly", and whether replacing someone is in the beneficiaries' best interests [49].
• Serious fault usually means removal. Where there is fault "material such as to endanger the estate the court is very likely to exercise its powers under section 50". Minor criticism that does not affect the administration may not be enough [49].
• What the person who died wanted matters. Their choice of executor in the will is a factor to take into account [49].
• What the beneficiaries want matters, but they cannot demand it. No beneficiary has a right to insist on a replacement. The court must "make a balanced judgment taking a broad view about what is in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole" [49].
• Has the job become impossible? A breakdown in relationships "will not without more justify their replacement". But "if the breakdown of relations makes the task of the personal representatives difficult or impossible, replacement may be the only option" [49].
• Cost counts. Bringing in professionals costs money. That has to be weighed against the size of the estate and the work still to be done [49].

Three further points were added. In Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch), the same Chief Master repeated that "the core concern of the court is what is in the best interests of the beneficiaries looking at their interests as a whole" [50]. In National Westminster Bank plc v Lucas [2014] EWHC 653 (Ch), Sales J adopted a working test. Removal is appropriate if there is a real risk that the person will not act fairly and conscientiously, or if they cannot be expected to carry out the administration in an effective and proper manner [51]. In Long v Rodman [2019] EWHC 753 (Ch), the court confirmed that the discretion is to be exercised in a pragmatic way [52]. Removal is also justified where a representative displays inappropriate hostility towards beneficiaries, although in Lucas itself that hostility was not established on the facts [53].

What a defendant is allowed to ask for

Richard had not brought a counterclaim. He had asked the court for directions to settle the disagreements, so that the two of them could obtain probate without paying for a professional [43]. Laura's barrister argued that he was not allowed to do that without permission [45].

The court disagreed. Rule 8.3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules lets a defendant seek a different remedy without permission, provided it arises out of the same matters the claimant relies on. A counterclaim is a different thing. It needs a separate cause of action, meaning a genuinely separate set of facts [45].

Selling the family home to a member of the family

Laura argued that the only proper way to fix a price for the house was an open market sale with vacant possession. That submission was rejected [66].

The judgment relied on the textbook Lewin on Trusts (20th edition) and on Brown v Brown [2019] EWHC 138 (Ch). Where the court thinks the estate's interests are best served by the executor buying the property without it being marketed, that purchase can be authorised even if the other beneficiary objects [66]. In Brown, Master Teverson rejected the argument that a sale at a valuation is generally inappropriate because valuations do not properly test the market [66]. He said this:

"In the case of two adult beneficiaries who cannot agree over price, … the executor beneficiary faced with this difficulty is in my view acting fairly and properly in accordance with his duties by obtaining a valuation report from a fully qualified valuer who is instructed to give his report on the same basis as an expert witness for the court." [66]

Paying rent for living in the house

On whether one co-owner who lives in a property has to pay the other for it, the court has a broad power in equity to do justice between the parties [74]. The test in Brown is framed in the same terms as the test between co-owners in the Court of Appeal case Ali v Khatib [2022] EWCA Civ 481, [2022] 4 WLR 50. "The court is required to do broad justice between co-owners and to determine what would be fair" [74].

The starting point may surprise you:

"the default position at common law where one co-owner was in occupation and the other was not was that occupation rent was not payable. The position was the same in equity unless there was an ouster or a letting to a stranger for rent." [74]

3. Applying the Law to the Facts

The judgment starts with an observation that frames everything. It had been clear from the outset that Laura did not want to administer the estate with Richard. She first asked for an independent administrator in October 2022 [54].

The judgment is fair about what had gone right. There had been some co-operation. They jointly instructed the solicitors BRM and the agents Savills. They eventually agreed the funeral arrangements. Richard asked Laura to compile the list of lifetime gifts needed for inheritance tax. Laura came round to the formal valuation. They at least discussed renting the house, even though they could not agree [55].

But the overall picture was "of a relationship riven with conflict and mistrust, with fault on both sides" [56].

Where Richard went wrong

He initially excluded Laura from the house and from access to their mother's paperwork [56]. He often did not copy her in when writing to the professional advisers, although the judgment notes she was free to contact them herself [56]. His approach to renting the house out was "entirely unreasonable", because the lender's refusal was an absolute bar [56]. "Even more unreasonable" was his response to her refusal, which was to enter the caveat. There were no proper grounds for it, and while it lasted no grant of probate could be obtained [56].

Where Laura went wrong

She had "repeatedly refused or failed to engage" in getting the estate administered. That was her responsibility just as much as her brother's, so she shared the blame for the delay [58]. In April 2023 she told Richard that she required a full inventory of the items taken from the house "before this probate process goes any further" [58].

Her list of accusations largely fell apart [59]:

• A complaint of "financial abuse" in her second witness statement was struck out [59].
• The claim that Richard misrepresented the property market failed. Savills themselves had described the market as "challenging". She produced no evidence to the contrary, and the house simply could not be sold at £2.5 million or at £2 million [59].
• The claim that he falsely said he had helped clear the mortgage was met by his evidence, supported by a statement of truth, that he personally paid £64,137 towards the arrears and the redemption [59].
• The allegation that he forged her signature was denied, and she produced no evidence to support it [59].
• The complaints about the family company were outside the administration, were denied, and were already the subject of separate litigation [59].
• On the allegation that he accessed her AXA Health account, AXA Health confirmed that it could find no evidence of fraudulent activity [59].

On her complaint that he moved into the house without her consent, the judgment makes two points. She would not have consented anyway, and she cited no authority that a joint executor needed her consent as a matter of law [57]. The property had stood empty for three years. Someone occupying it was likely to protect it and preserve its value, which benefited the estate [57]. The judgment then adds a pointed line: "That is not to say that Richard was entitled to occupy rent free" [57]. Richard and his family had also spent considerable time and expense repairing and maintaining the house. Laura had contributed nothing towards that, even when asked [60].

The decision

It came down to one question. Was there any realistic prospect of these two co-operating to finish the administration? The answer was blunt. The history, and their positions at the hearing, "compels the conclusion that there is no realistic prospect of this" [61].

Simply ruling on the individual arguments would not fix the underlying distrust. New disputes would keep arising, and they would keep coming back to court. That would not be a proportionate use of the court's resources [62]. A professional administrator, by contrast, could keep an even hand between the parties and decide those questions impartially, without needing to ask the court for guidance [63].

The leftover arguments

Because neither sibling was staying in post, the remaining questions did not strictly need answering. They had been fully argued, though, and the answers might help the new administrator, so the judgment deals with them briefly [65].

On the sale price. Laura's insistence on an open market sale was rejected [66]. Her criticisms of the court's expert fared no better. Her barrister argued that Richard should pay the top of the valuation range, £1,897,500, relying on Brown. But in that case the judge was never asked whether a lower price would have been enough, so Brown is not authority that a buying beneficiary must pay the top of the range [68]. In any event, once replaced by Cripps, Richard would no longer be bound by the constraints of a fiduciary [68]. The reasons for allowing an off market sale at a valuation have "even greater force" where the buyer is only a beneficiary [67]. Her objection that the valuation assumed vacant possession was "misconceived", because that is exactly the right basis [69].

Her final objection was that the expert had exchanged a few words with Richard during the inspection, contrary to his instructions. That was "also very weak" [70]. The expert explained that he had not recorded or relied on anything Richard told him, apart from the drainage, which he verified himself on inspection [71]. Laura's barrister did not dispute that the swimming pool was built in the 1970s as Richard had said, and did not suggest that it affected the valuation [72]. The judgment describes the point as "an archetypal instance of the unreasonable approach of Laura to matters relating to the estate" [72].

On rent for living there. Richard had offered to pay occupation rent from August 2025 [73]. The expert put the rental value at £4,250 a month as at September 2025, up from £3,485 a month in September 2022 [48]. The figure was left to the new administrator, who can take all the relevant circumstances into account and do broad justice. That includes the market rent and any benefit to the estate from the house being occupied [75]. It may even be appropriate to deduct an amount from Richard's share of the residuary estate to reflect the benefit of his occupation, rather than formally charging rent at all [75]. Richard would be entitled to credit for expenses properly incurred on the property, but not for expenses referable to his personal occupation of it [75].

What this means for you

This was not a fight about what the will said. Nobody argued the will was invalid. It was a fight about the people named to carry it out.

• Naming two people who do not get on is a risk. Joint executors have to act together. Here the estate stalled for years, and the court found there was no realistic prospect of the two of them finishing the job [61].
• Delay has a price, and it compounds. The inheritance tax fell due in March 2023 and went unpaid because there was no cash in the estate [20]. By the hearing the interest was about £142,000 and running at £117.81 a day [6].
• The court can remove an executor without finding anyone dishonest. The guiding question is whether the administration is being carried out properly, in the beneficiaries' best interests [49].
• Blame is rarely all on one side. The court found fault with both of them [56] [58], and most of the accusations made in the claim were not substantiated [59].
• A professional costs less than the fight. Cripps quoted up to £34,000 plus VAT to take the whole estate through [4]. The siblings had already spent £266,000 on legal costs [10].

If you are choosing executors, think about whether the people you have in mind can work together, and what happens if they cannot. You can appoint a professional, name a substitute, or appoint one person rather than two. We can talk that through with you when you make your will.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. If you are an executor in a dispute, or you are worried about who to appoint in your own will, please get in touch for advice on your specific circumstances.

Sources

• Key v Key [2026] EWHC 2098 (Ch) on BAILII. Master Clark, handed down 14 August 2026. This is the source of every fact and every quotation in this article, referenced by paragraph number throughout.
• The other authorities discussed above are cited as they appear in the judgment itself: Harris v Earwicker [2015] EWHC 1915 (Ch) at paragraph 9 [49]; Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch) at paragraph 18 [50]; National Westminster Bank plc v Lucas [2014] EWHC 653 (Ch) at paragraph 80 [51] [53]; Long v Rodman [2019] EWHC 753 (Ch) at paragraph 19 [52]; Brown v Brown [2019] EWHC 138 (Ch) at paragraphs 38 to 54 [66] and paragraph 52 [74]; and Ali v Khatib [2022] EWCA Civ 481, [2022] 4 WLR 50 [74].