Choosing the Right Decision-Makers—and Understanding Why More Isn’t Always Better

When creating an estate plan, one of the most important decisions you will make is choosing who will manage your affairs if you become incapacitated or pass away.

Should you appoint one trustee or two co-trustees? Is it better to name a single executor or have your children serve together as co-executors? Should you appoint two people under your power of attorney? And what happens if the person you choose cannot or will not serve?

These questions often arise when parents have multiple children and want to treat everyone equally. While naming everyone may seem like the fairest approach, it is not always the most practical—or the best way to protect your family.

The key is understanding the difference between appointing multiple people to serve together and naming successor decision-makers who step in only when needed.

There is no universal answer. The right arrangement depends on your family relationships, the complexity of your assets, the responsibilities involved, and the laws of your state.

1. One Trustee vs. Two Co-Trustees: Which Is Better?

A trustee is responsible for managing assets held in a trust according to the trust’s terms and applicable law. Depending on the type of trust, the trustee’s responsibilities may include managing investments, maintaining real estate, paying expenses, filing tax returns, distributing assets, and communicating with beneficiaries. (For a fuller overview, see What Does a Trustee Do? A Practical Guide to Trust Administration.)

Advantages of Naming One Trustee

Appointing a single trustee is often the simplest and most efficient arrangement.

With one trustee, there is a clear decision-maker who can act without coordinating every decision with another person.

Benefits may include:

• Faster decisions: One trustee can generally make authorized decisions without waiting for another trustee’s approval.
• Clear accountability: Beneficiaries know who is responsible for administering the trust.
• Less administrative complexity: Banks, investment companies, and other institutions have fewer individuals to verify or obtain signatures from.
• Reduced risk of disagreements: There is no co-trustee deadlock over investment decisions, distributions, or property sales.
• Potentially lower costs: Administration may be simpler, particularly when professional trustees charge fees.

For example, suppose a trust owns a rental property that needs urgent repairs. A single trustee can arrange the repairs promptly, subject to the trustee’s duties and the trust’s requirements.

With two co-trustees, disagreements over contractors, costs, or whether to sell the property could delay necessary action.

Advantages of Naming Two Co-Trustees

Although a single trustee is often more efficient, appointing two trustees can provide additional oversight and complementary expertise.

Co-trustees may be beneficial when:

• The trust holds substantial or complicated assets.
• One trustee has financial expertise while another understands the beneficiaries’ needs.
• Family circumstances make shared oversight desirable.
• The trust will continue for many years, particularly for minor children or beneficiaries with special needs.
• The individuals have a demonstrated ability to work together.

For example, one sibling may be an accountant who understands investments and taxes, while another lives near the family’s real estate and can oversee maintenance.

Together, they may offer a useful combination of skills.

However, two trustees do not automatically provide twice the protection. They may instead create delays, disagreements, duplicated work, and additional administrative expenses.

Importantly, state law and the trust document determine how co-trustees may act. Some decisions may require joint participation, while other actions may be permitted by majority vote, delegation, or another procedure established in the trust. Keep in mind that a majority vote does not help much when there are only two trustees: if they disagree, there is no majority.

What Happens When Co-Trustees Disagree?

Consider a trust that owns the family home.

One trustee wants to sell the property immediately and distribute the proceeds. The other wants to retain the property because of sentimental value or anticipated appreciation.

If the trust does not establish a clear mechanism for resolving disagreements, administration can become expensive and contentious.

Depending on the circumstances, the trustees may need mediation, legal advice, court intervention, or even the removal or replacement of a trustee.

This is why the decision to name co-trustees should involve more than simply asking whether two people are trustworthy.

You should also ask whether they can work together effectively.

2. One Executor vs. Co-Executors: Should Your Children Serve Together?

An executor, sometimes called a personal representative, is responsible for administering a deceased person’s probate estate.

The executor’s duties may include locating assets, addressing creditor claims, filing required tax returns, paying estate expenses, managing estate property, and distributing assets to beneficiaries.

Why One Executor Is Often the Better Choice

In many estates, appointing one capable executor is the most practical option.

A single executor can generally:

• Communicate directly with the probate court and estate attorney.
• Manage estate bank accounts and financial records.
• Coordinate property sales and asset distributions.
• Address creditor claims and tax obligations.
• Make timely decisions without requiring agreement from a co-executor.

Having one executor also creates a clear point of contact for beneficiaries and professionals.

When Co-Executors May Make Sense

Co-executors may be appropriate when the estate is particularly complicated or when two individuals bring different, valuable skills to the administration.

For example, an estate may include a family business, multiple investment accounts, and properties in several states.

One executor may have business experience, while the other understands the family’s financial affairs.

Nevertheless, the benefits of co-executors must be weighed against the possibility of disagreements and administrative delays.

Depending on state law and the governing documents, co-executors may need to act together on certain matters.

Even when the law permits some independent action, financial institutions and other third parties may impose documentation or signature requirements.

Should You Name All Your Children as Co-Executors to Be Fair?

This is one of the most common estate planning mistakes families should consider carefully.

Parents often assume that appointing all their children as co-executors will prevent hurt feelings.

Unfortunately, the opposite can happen.

Imagine three adult children who inherit their parents’ estate equally. One lives nearby, another lives across the country, and the third has limited time to assist.

If all three serve as co-executors, coordinating decisions may be difficult. Disagreements about selling the family home, distributing personal belongings, or handling estate expenses may create unnecessary conflict.

Equal inheritance does not require equal administrative authority.

You can leave your children equal shares of your estate while appointing the child best suited to handle the administrative responsibilities. (If you are weighing whether to pay that child for the extra work, see How Much Does an Executor Get Paid in California?)

Choosing one executor is not a statement that you love or trust your other children any less.

It is a practical decision about who can perform a demanding job effectively.

3. One Power of Attorney or Two? Understanding the Risks

A power of attorney allows someone, known as an agent or attorney-in-fact, to act on your behalf within the authority granted by the document.

A financial power of attorney may authorize an agent to manage bank accounts, pay bills, handle real estate transactions, and address other financial matters.

A healthcare power of attorney, healthcare proxy, or similar directive generally concerns medical decision-making, subject to applicable state law.

These are different responsibilities, and the best person for one may not be the best person for the other.

Why Naming One Primary Agent Is Often Preferable

For financial matters, naming one primary agent often makes administration easier.

Your agent may need to respond quickly to financial emergencies, pay medical bills, communicate with financial institutions, or handle urgent property matters.

When two people must act jointly, disagreements or simple scheduling difficulties may prevent timely action.

For example, if you are hospitalized and a financial obligation must be addressed immediately, requiring two agents to approve the transaction could create unnecessary complications.

One capable agent may be able to act more efficiently.

Can You Name Two Agents Under a Power of Attorney?

Yes. Depending on applicable state law, a power of attorney may permit multiple agents to act jointly or independently.

These arrangements are very different.

• Joint agents: Both agents must participate in decisions or actions to the extent required by the document and governing law.
• Independent or concurrent agents: Each agent may be authorized to act separately, subject to the document and applicable law.

Joint authority may offer additional oversight, but it can create delays.

Independent authority may provide flexibility, but it can also increase the risk of inconsistent instructions, confusion, or misuse.

For example, one agent might instruct a bank to transfer funds while another independently directs the bank to retain those funds.

Financial institutions may be reluctant to proceed when they receive conflicting instructions.

If multiple agents are appointed, the document should clearly explain their authority and any procedures for resolving conflicts. (For how a power of attorney interacts with a living trust, see Power of Attorney and Revocable Trusts: Understanding Who Controls What.)

What About Healthcare Powers of Attorney?

Healthcare decisions can be especially time-sensitive.

If two people have equal authority and disagree about treatment, the disagreement may delay care or create uncertainty for medical providers.

For this reason, appointing one primary healthcare decision-maker and one or more successors is often preferable.

The person selected should understand your healthcare wishes, be willing to advocate for them, communicate effectively with medical professionals, and remain calm under pressure.

A healthcare agent does not have to be the same person who handles your finances.

For example, you may choose a financially sophisticated sibling to manage your accounts while appointing your spouse or adult child to make healthcare decisions.

The best choice depends on the responsibilities involved—not simply the person’s relationship to you.

4. The Often-Overlooked Solution: Naming Successor Trustees, Executors, and Agents

Many people believe that appointing two people simultaneously provides the best protection if something happens to one of them.

But there is another option that often works better: name one primary decision-maker and one or more successors.

A successor is someone designated to take over when the person serving before them dies, resigns, becomes incapacitated, declines to serve, or otherwise ceases to qualify under the governing document and applicable law.

How Successor Appointments Work

Consider this example:

• Primary trustee: Your spouse
• First successor trustee: Your daughter
• Second successor trustee: Your son
• Additional successor: A trusted professional or corporate trustee

Your spouse serves first when authorized under the trust. Your daughter does not automatically become a co-trustee merely because she is named as the first successor.

Instead, she assumes the role when the circumstances specified in the trust permit or require her to do so.

If she cannot serve, your son may be next in line.

A similar approach can be used for executors and powers of attorney, although the procedures for assuming authority differ.

Why Successors Are Often Better Than Co-Decision-Makers

Successor appointments provide continuity without requiring multiple individuals to make every decision together.

They can offer:

• A clear chain of authority.
• Reduced risk of disagreements.
• More efficient administration.
• Backup protection if the primary person becomes unavailable.
• Flexibility to choose different individuals based on their strengths.

For many families, this arrangement offers a practical balance between simplicity and protection.

However, a successor does not necessarily provide ongoing oversight of the person currently serving. If oversight is a major concern, additional safeguards may be appropriate.

5. What Happens If Your Trustee, Executor, or Agent Cannot Serve?

One of the most important reasons to name successors is to avoid gaps in authority.

A trustee may resign, die, or become incapacitated. An executor may decline an appointment or be unable to qualify. A power of attorney agent may become unavailable just when assistance is needed.

If no successor is designated, state law and the relevant document determine what happens next.

For a trust, the beneficiaries or a court may need to participate in selecting a replacement trustee.

For an estate, the probate court may appoint another qualified personal representative.

For a power of attorney, the absence of an available agent may require a new document if the principal still has capacity, or potentially a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding if the principal lacks capacity and no other appropriate authority exists.

These situations can create delays, additional legal expenses, and family disagreements.

Naming successors in advance can help prevent those problems.

6. How Do You Decide Who Should Serve?

The person who should inherit your assets is not necessarily the person best qualified to manage them.

When selecting a trustee, executor, or power of attorney agent, consider the following factors.

Factor	Why it matters
Trustworthiness	The person may control significant assets or make important personal decisions.
Financial responsibility	Trustees, executors, and financial agents often handle substantial financial obligations.
Organizational skills	Recordkeeping, deadlines, and communication are essential.
Availability	The person must have enough time to fulfill the responsibilities.
Family relationships	Existing tensions can complicate administration.
Ability to make difficult decisions	The role may require decisions that disappoint beneficiaries or relatives.
Location	Distance may complicate certain tasks, although many responsibilities can be handled remotely.
Willingness to serve	A qualified person may still be unwilling to accept the responsibility.
Age and health	Consider whether the person is likely to remain available when needed.

It is also important to understand that these positions carry legal obligations.

Trustees and executors generally owe fiduciary duties under applicable law. Financial agents under powers of attorney may also have fiduciary obligations.

These roles should not be treated merely as honorary family titles.

7. When Is Having Two People Actually Better?

Although one primary decision-maker with successors is often a practical starting point, there are circumstances where two individuals serving together may be preferable.

• Complex trusts: A trust holding a business, significant investments, or substantial real estate may benefit from complementary expertise.
• Long-term trusts: A trust established for a child or vulnerable beneficiary may benefit from carefully structured shared oversight.
• Concerns about financial misconduct: Two fiduciaries may provide checks and balances, although shared authority does not guarantee prevention of misconduct.
• Different areas of expertise: One person may understand investments while another is particularly familiar with a beneficiary’s circumstances.
• Family dynamics: In certain families, carefully structured co-appointments may reduce concerns about unilateral control.

Even in these circumstances, the estate planning documents should address how decisions are made, whether responsibilities may be delegated, what happens when the individuals disagree, and how a fiduciary can be replaced.

8. Can You Give Different People Different Responsibilities?

Absolutely. In fact, dividing responsibilities can sometimes be more effective than requiring two people to share the same role.

For example, an estate plan might appoint:

• One adult child as executor.
• A different adult child as successor trustee.
• A spouse as primary financial power of attorney agent.
• Another trusted individual as healthcare agent.
• Additional successors for each role.

This approach allows you to match each responsibility with the person best suited to perform it.

It can also avoid placing too much responsibility on one individual.

For families with significant assets, blended family relationships, special needs considerations, or complicated business interests, a professional or corporate trustee may also be worth considering.

9. Should You Name a Professional Trustee or Executor Instead of a Family Member?

In some circumstances, appointing a professional fiduciary may be preferable to appointing one or more relatives.

A professional fiduciary may offer experience, continuity, impartiality, and established administrative procedures.

This can be particularly helpful when:

• Family members do not get along.
• The trust will remain in existence for many years.
• The estate includes complicated assets.
• Beneficiaries have competing interests.
• No family member has the time or expertise to serve.

However, professional fiduciaries typically charge fees, may have minimum asset requirements, and may not possess the same personal understanding of the family. (We compare the options in Corporate Trustee vs. Individual Trustee: Do You Need One and What Does It Cost?)

Some families choose a professional trustee with a family member serving in an advisory or other legally defined capacity.

The appropriate structure depends on the trust’s purpose and applicable law.

10. Common Estate Planning Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake #1: Naming all your children because you want to be fair. Fairness in inheritance does not require identical decision-making authority.

Mistake #2: Assuming two decision-makers are always safer than one. Multiple decision-makers can provide oversight, but they can also create conflict and delay.

Mistake #3: Failing to name successors. Without appropriate backups, a vacancy may require additional legal proceedings or other intervention.

Mistake #4: Choosing someone solely because they are the oldest child. Age does not necessarily determine financial ability, availability, or judgment.

Mistake #5: Naming someone without discussing the responsibilities. A person may be unwilling or unable to serve, even if they love and care about you.

Mistake #6: Using the same person for every role without considering their strengths. Financial management, estate administration, and healthcare decision-making require different abilities.

Mistake #7: Failing to establish procedures for co-fiduciary disagreements. If two people must work together, the governing documents should address what happens when they cannot agree.

11. So, Is One or Two Better? Our General Recommendation

For many families, the most efficient arrangement is to appoint one qualified primary individual for each role, with at least one carefully selected successor.

This approach often minimizes administrative complications while providing continuity if the original person cannot serve.

However, that does not mean co-trustees, co-executors, or multiple power of attorney agents are inherently bad choices.

The better arrangement depends on the assets involved, the individuals selected, family dynamics, the need for oversight, and the applicable legal requirements.

The goal should not be to give everyone a title.

The goal should be to create an estate plan that works when your family needs it most.

12. Your Estate Plan Should Reflect Your Family—Not a One-Size-Fits-All Formula

An effective estate plan does more than identify who receives your property.

It establishes who will make decisions, how those decisions will be made, who can step in when necessary, and how to minimize confusion and conflict.

At Ginsburg Law Group, we help individuals and families evaluate their estate planning options and develop documents designed around their circumstances and goals.

Whether you are creating a trust, preparing a will, updating a power of attorney, or reconsidering who should serve as your fiduciaries, thoughtful planning today can help protect your family tomorrow.

Contact Ginsburg Law Group to discuss your estate planning needs and determine which decision-making structure makes the most sense for you and your loved ones.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Trust, probate, power of attorney, and healthcare decision-making laws vary by state. The appropriate structure depends on your circumstances and applicable law. Consult a qualified estate planning attorney before making decisions about fiduciary appointments.