Supervised Administration
Yesterday I talked about some of the advantages of independent administration of a probate estate over traditional (or "supervised") administration. Those advantages have resulted in most probate estates being administered independently. But why might someone choose supervised administration for an estate?
The biggest reason is greater court oversight. In a fairly simple estate, where all of the beneficiaries get along, independent administration may work fine. But in a complex estate, or one where the beneficiaries are feuding (among themselves or with the estate representative), the parties may desire more court involvement. In supervised administration, the representative (executor or administrator) must get court approval prior to taking almost any action (such as selling estate property or paying debts and expenses) -- this requirement allows beneficiaries to monitor the representative's activities, and possibly prevent certain actions from being taken.
By contrast, beneficiaries of an estate under independent administration may not find out about a representative's actions until after he or she has taken them. In other words, the ease of use attributable to independent administration comes with a price.
A parallel can be seen with powers of attorney. A valid power of attorney can mean that a (time-consuming and costly) guardianship isn't needed if an individual becomes disabled. But having the oversight provided by a guardianship proceeding isn't so bad if the alternative is an agent who abuses the power given him or her under a power of attorney.
