Home » Removing an Estate Administrator in Israel: Grounds, Procedure and Personal Liability

Removing an Estate Administrator in Israel: Grounds, Procedure and Personal Liability

An estate administrator who files no accounts, lets an apartment fall into disrepair, pays one heir ahead of the others or negotiates a sale without authorisation can freeze an estate for years. Israeli succession law does not leave the beneficiaries powerless: the court can supervise, and ultimately remove, a failing estate administrator (מנהל עיזבון), and can hold him personally liable for the loss he caused. The difficulty lies in choosing the right application, before the right authority.

I. An administrator who remains under the court’s control

In Israel the estate administrator is appointed by the Family Court (בית המשפט לענייני משפחה) or, where every interested party consents, by the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs (רשם לענייני ירושה). He is not the heirs’ agent and does not take instructions from them: he holds a statutory office under continuing judicial supervision.

Section 83 of the Succession Law allows the court, at any time, on the application of any interested party or of its own motion, to give the administrator directions on any matter concerning the performance of his duties.
Section 86 requires him to keep accounts and to deliver to the heirs an account (דין וחשבון) at least once a year, and again when his office ends.
In the cases set out in the law, those documents also go to the Administrator General (האפוטרופוס הכללי) for review.

This first tier is widely underused. Against an administrator who is merely slow, an application for directions usually achieves the desired result faster than removal — and without leaving the estate unadministered.

II. The grounds for removal

Section 92 governs the end of the office. Subsection (b) is the operative provision: the court may, on the application of an interested party or of its own motion, dismiss (לפטר) the administrator if he has not properly performed his duty, or if the court finds another reason for his dismissal.

The first limb targets default: accounts never produced, no inventory, acts carried out without the prior authorisation the law requires, prolonged inaction.
The second limb is deliberately open — conflict of interest, loss of confidence, practical inability to act. It leaves the judge a margin of appreciation, which he must reason.
The same section also provides for resignation, by written notice to the court, effective only once the court approves it, and for the office to lapse when the court confirms that the task has been completed.

One point deserves to be stated plainly to beneficiaries: mere disagreement, disappointment or perceived slowness is not enough, but a substantiated loss of confidence (absence of accounts, lack of transparency, inaction) may justify removal under the “other reason” limb of section 92(b). The failure must be proved, document in hand. A poorly supported removal application is dismissed and leaves the administrator in place.

III. Who may apply, and on what evidence

The law opens the application to any interested party (מעונין בדבר): heirs and legatees and, according to the case law, estate creditors whose interest is direct. The court may also act of its own motion. A solid file rests on objective material:

the accounts and reports delivered — or proof that they were never delivered despite written requests;
the inventory of the estate, and any discrepancies found;
the transactions carried out over estate assets and the matching court authorisations, or their absence;
formal demands that went unanswered.

IV. The administrator’s personal liability

Removal ends the office; it does not compensate the loss. Section 88 does that: the estate administrator is liable for damage he caused by breaching his duty as administrator. The provision contains two safety valves that every claimant should weigh before suing:

the court may relieve him of liability, wholly or in part, if he acted in good faith and intended to carry out his duties;
he bears no liability at all if he acted in good faith in accordance with the court’s directions.

The lesson cuts both ways: a prudent administrator secures his difficult decisions by asking for directions, and a beneficiary who wants to be able to challenge a decision later is better off objecting before the court authorises it.

V. Security — the overlooked safeguard

Section 89 allows the court, before or after the appointment, to require the administrator to charge assets or provide other security (ערובה) to secure performance of his duties. The court may at any time require additional security, or release security already given. Where the testator exempted the person he named from giving security, or named him without requiring security, the court may require it only if satisfied, for reasons that it records, that there are special reasons (section 89(b)).

Asking for the security to be increased is sometimes the most useful step available: it protects the estate immediately, without interrupting the administration, and confronts the administrator with his real exposure.

VI. France and Israel: two architectures, one concern

French law offers three distinct devices: the posthumous mandate (article 812 of the Civil Code), the contractual mandate agreed between heirs (article 813) and the court-appointed estate agent (article 813-1), whom the judge appoints because of the heirs’ inertia, default or fault, their disagreement, a conflict of interest between them, or the complexity of the estate.

Sanctioning default. Article 813-7 lets the judge, on the application of any interested person or of the public prosecutor, divest the court-appointed agent of his mission for a characterised breach, and appoint another agent at once. A posthumous mandate may be judicially revoked notably for poor performance of the mission (article 812-4).
Accounting. Article 813-8 entitles each heir to inspect the mission’s documents at any time and requires an annual and final report to the judge, also provided to each heir on request — close in logic to Israel’s section 86.
Duration. In France the judgment fixes the duration and the remuneration, and the mission ends automatically on an indivision agreement or on signature of the deed of partition (article 813-9); in Israel the office continues until the court confirms its completion, the appointment order in practice fixing a term (two years if none is stated, six months for a temporary administrator) that the court may extend (Succession Regulations, reg. 37).
Where the notary sits. The heaviest practical difference: in France the notary remains the hub of the estate settlement and the agent is an auxiliary. Israel has no equivalent of the French notary settling an estate — the lawyer conducts the proceedings before the Registrar or the Family Court, and the Israeli notary is a specially licensed lawyer, competent for powers of attorney, certifications and translations. The estate administrator therefore becomes the central figure as soon as the heirs can no longer act together.
No automatic bridge. EU Regulation 650/2012 does not bind Israel, which is not a Member State: a European Certificate of Succession issued in France does not produce there the effects provided for by its article 69, and only an Israeli order is authoritative there for assets located in Israel (section 136 of the Succession Law). A French decision divesting an agent does not, by itself, remove an Israeli מנהל עיזבון: the Israeli court must be seised.
Tax. Israel levies no inheritance tax, but a later resale of inherited property falls under Mas Shevah (מס שבח), the betterment tax on real-estate gains. A sale poorly prepared by an administrator can therefore cost the heirs dearly, long after his office has ended.

Conclusion – Why work with a lawyer experienced in estate administration?

Choosing between an application for directions, increased security, removal and a damages claim is a matter of strategy rather than principle: each route has its own timetable, cost and effect on the estate. Where the heirs live abroad and the assets sit in Israel, the choice also requires reading both legal systems together and organising evidence, powers of attorney and certified translations.

That is precisely the ground covered by Abitbol & Associés, a firm bringing together lawyers admitted to the Israel Bar and to the Paris Bar, together with an Israeli notary. One team follows the file before the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs or the Family Court, prepares the instruments required from abroad and secures the documentary chain between the two countries.

With this in mind, the ABITBOL & ASSOCIES law firm assists its clients at every stage of supervising an estate administrator: applications for directions, removal and claims for personal liability. Our lawyers make sure your interests are protected and that every step is taken in complete safety.