Feuding executors: what Key v Key cost an estate

This case is not about capacity. Nobody suggested that Grace Key lacked capacity. Nobody challenged her will. It named the two people she trusted most, and it said what she wanted it to say [3]. Her estate was wrecked anyway.

The two people she trusted were her adult children. She made them joint executors, and they were also the only beneficiaries [3]. They could not work together. After four years of arguing, the judge took the job away from both of them and handed the estate to a professional [64].

By then the inheritance tax had gone unpaid. Interest on it had reached about £142,000, and it was growing by £117.81 a day [6]. The brother and sister had spent £266,000 on 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].

The case 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. Her will dated from November 2014 [2]. It named her two adult children, Laura and Richard, as joint executors. They were also the only two people who stood to inherit [3].

The estate was a large one. 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, split equally between the two of them, plus personal belongings and a small life policy [5]. Draft accounts put the estate at just over £1.9 million after debts [6].

One fact shaped everything that followed, and both sides accepted it. Laura and Richard were estranged [8].

The first letter came 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 list of 14 points she wanted confirmed, down to the feeding of the cat [8]. Richard did not reply to those letters. He did not answer the allegations in his court evidence either [8].

There was 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 the same letters, Laura asked for an independent professional to run the estate [12]. Richard suggested an independent firm of solicitors, BRM, and Laura instructed them [12]. Richard registered the death and used the Tell Us Once service. He also carried out the repairs and maintenance at the house from the start [13].

By December 2022 the two of them were barely speaking. After a row about keys to the Barn, Laura blocked the email addresses and phone numbers of Richard and his wife Lisa. Everything had to go through her solicitors [15].

A house that would not sell, and a tax bill that would not wait

Savills valued the house in November 2022 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 [22].

On 28 March 2023 the inheritance tax fell due. The estate had no cash to pay it, so it was not paid [20].

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

In August 2023, in response to her refusal, Richard entered a caveat [29].

The judgment found there was no basis on which the caveat could be justified. Richard’s own barrister did not try to justify it [29]. Its effect was straightforward. No grant of probate could be obtained while it stood [56].

A formal valuation in July 2023 put the house at £2 million [28]. The asking price came down to that figure, and the house sat unsold until May 2024 [32]. In September 2023 BRM stopped acting, because they were receiving conflicting instructions. Their bill had risen partly because they could not get positive instructions from Laura, and partly because they were copied into the siblings’ emails [30].

Their father pays

The mortgage arrears grew. Richard says he paid £22,031.29 towards them in October 2023 [31]. In March 2024 the siblings’ father, Rodney Key, paid £330,000, leaving £41,510.71 outstanding [33]. In June 2024 the lender warned that it would begin possession proceedings if the rest was not paid [36]. Richard says he then paid the whole balance of £42,105.70 and cleared the mortgage [38].

By March 2024 both sides’ solicitors agreed on one point only. These two could not work together as executors [34] [35]. Richard offered to buy Laura out and suggested mediation [37]. The mediation failed in November 2024 [41]. In March 2025 he asked her to step down [41]. In July 2025 she issued a claim to remove him [42].

Her claim listed twelve grounds, including delay, occupying the house without paying rent, misrepresenting the property market, the caveat, forging her signature, and accessing her private health account [42]. Richard’s position was that he remained willing to act jointly. The estate was straightforward, he said, disagreements could be settled by the court giving directions, and the parties could instruct solicitors to do what they could not do themselves [46]. 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 procedure used where the facts are not really in dispute. All the evidence was written. Nobody gave evidence from a witness box [11].

The judgment describes the power in question 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

The principles came 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:

• Nobody has to be in the wrong. The court need not find fault. “The guiding principle is whether the administration of the estate is being carried out properly”, and whether a replacement is in the beneficiaries’ best interests [49].
• Serious fault usually means removal. Fault “material such as to endanger the estate” makes it very likely the court will act. Minor criticism that does not affect the administration may not be enough [49].
• The wishes of the person who died count. Their choice of executor in the will is a factor to weigh [49].
• So do the beneficiaries’ wishes, but they cannot demand a change. 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 relations “will not without more justify their replacement”. But if it makes the task “difficult or impossible, replacement may be the only option” [49].
• Cost counts. Appointing professionals costs money, weighed against the size of the estate and the work left to do [49].

Three further points were added. Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch) 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 where there is a real risk the person will not act fairly and conscientiously, or cannot be expected to carry out the administration in an effective and proper manner [51]. Long v Rodman [2019] EWHC 753 (Ch) confirmed that the discretion is exercised in a pragmatic way [52]. Removal is also justified where a representative shows inappropriate hostility towards beneficiaries, although in Lucas that was not established on the facts [53].

Selling the family home to a member of the family

Laura argued that the only proper way to fix a price was an open market sale with vacant possession. That was rejected [66]. Relying on Lewin on Trusts (20th edition) and on Brown v Brown [2019] EWHC 138 (Ch), the judgment held that a purchase by the executor without marketing can be authorised, even over the other beneficiary’s objection, where the estate’s interests are best served by it [66]. In Brown, Master Teverson 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

Where one co-owner lives in a property and the other does not, the court has a broad power in equity to do justice between them [74]. The test in Brown is framed in the same terms as the test between co-owners in 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

One observation frames the judgment. 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 even-handed about what had gone right. There had been co-operation. They jointly instructed BRM and Savills. They agreed the funeral arrangements in the end. Richard asked Laura to compile the list of lifetime gifts needed for inheritance tax. Laura came round to the formal valuation. They 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 excluded Laura from the house at the start, and from their mother’s paperwork [56]. He often did not copy her in when writing to the professional advisers, although the judgment notes she could have contacted them herself [56]. His approach to letting the house was “entirely unreasonable”, because the lender’s refusal was an absolute bar [56]. “Even more unreasonable” was his answer to her refusal, which was to enter the caveat. There were no proper grounds for it, and while it stood no grant of probate could issue [56].

Where Laura went wrong

She had “repeatedly refused or failed to engage” in progressing the administration. That was her responsibility as much as his, so she shared the blame for the delay [58]. In April 2023 she told him she required a full inventory of the items taken from the house “before this probate process goes any further” [58].

Most of her accusations did not survive [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 called the market “challenging”, she produced no evidence to the contrary, and the house 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, on a statement of truth, that he paid £64,137 towards the arrears and the redemption [59].
• The allegation that he forged her signature was denied, and she produced no evidence for it [59].
• The complaints about the family company were outside the administration, were denied, and were already in separate litigation [59].
• On the allegation that he accessed her AXA Health account, AXA Health confirmed 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, and she cited no authority that a joint executor needed her consent [57]. The house had stood empty for three years, and occupation was likely to protect it and preserve its value, which benefited the estate [57]. The judgment adds a pointed line: “That is not to say that Richard was entitled to occupy rent free” [57]. Richard and his family had spent considerable time and expense repairing and maintaining the house. Laura had contributed nothing, 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 history, and their positions at the hearing, “compels the conclusion that there is no realistic prospect of this” [61].

Ruling on the individual arguments would not cure the underlying distrust. New disputes would arise, and they would come back to court. That would not be a proportionate use of the court’s resources [62]. A professional administrator could keep an even hand between the parties and decide those questions impartially, without needing the court’s guidance [63].

The remaining arguments

Since neither sibling was staying in post, the other questions did not need deciding. They had been argued in full, and the answers might help the new administrator, so the judgment deals with them briefly [65].

On price. Laura’s barrister argued that Richard should pay the top of the valuation range, £1,897,500, relying on Brown. But the judge in that case was never asked whether a lower price would do, so Brown is not authority that a buying beneficiary must pay the top of a range [68]. Once replaced by Cripps, Richard would no longer be subject to the constraints of a fiduciary [68], and the case for an off market sale at valuation has “even greater force” where the buyer is only a beneficiary [67]. Her objection that the valuation assumed vacant possession was “misconceived”, because that is the correct basis [69].

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

On rent. 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 in September 2022 [48]. The figure was left to the new administrator, who can weigh all the circumstances and do broad justice, including the market rent and any benefit to the estate from the house being occupied [75]. It may be appropriate to deduct an amount from Richard’s share of the residue instead of charging rent at all [75]. He would be entitled to credit for expenses properly incurred on the property, but not for expenses referable to his own occupation [75].

What this means for protecting your wishes

Capacity Vault exists to answer one question: did you have capacity when you made your will or your LPA. That question was never asked in this case. Grace Key’s will stood, unchallenged, from the first day to the last [3].

That is the value of the case. A will can be watertight and still fail to deliver what the person wanted, because a will is only as good as the people asked to carry it out.

• Two executors who do not get on is a real risk. Joint executors must act together. Here the estate stalled for four years, and the court found no realistic prospect that the two of them would ever finish it [61].
• Delay costs money, and it compounds. The tax fell due in March 2023 and went unpaid because the estate held no cash [20]. By the hearing the interest was about £142,000, running at £117.81 a day [6].
• An executor can be removed without anyone being found dishonest. The question is whether the administration is being carried out properly, in the beneficiaries’ best interests [49].
• Accusations are easy to make and hard to prove. The court found fault on both sides [56] [58], and most of the twelve grounds in the claim were not substantiated [59].
• A professional is cheaper than a family 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, ask whether the people you have in mind can work together, and what happens if they cannot. You can name a professional, name a substitute, or name one person instead of two.

This article is general information about a decided case. It is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor on your own circumstances.

For more information

• Feuding Executors. How bad could it be? Key v Key [2026], a companion article on Make a Will, written for people making a will rather than for advisers.
• Key v Key [2026] EWHC 2098 (Ch), the full judgment on BAILII. Master Clark, handed down 14 August 2026. It is the source of every fact and every quotation above, referenced by paragraph number throughout.

The other authorities appear above as they are cited in the judgment itself: Harris v Earwicker [2015] EWHC 1915 (Ch) [49]; Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch) [50]; National Westminster Bank plc v Lucas [2014] EWHC 653 (Ch) [51] [53]; Long v Rodman [2019] EWHC 753 (Ch) [52]; Brown v Brown [2019] EWHC 138 (Ch) [66] [74]; and Ali v Khatib [2022] EWCA Civ 481, [2022] 4 WLR 50 [74].