I assume you trust both of them, or you wouldn't have designated both as executors. One of them will have to step up and take the burden (assuming you didn't name them co-executors that need to act jointly?). And assuming they both view it as a burden, they can decide that for themselves.
IMO problems between honest people arise when an estate drags out due to large non-monetary assets like houses, causing legitimate differences in opinion. If they both just want to sell it, that's easy. When one wants to keep it to live in, or if there is a lot of land and someone wants to subdivide to get more money, then you get into arguments. Or other intangibles like if one of them ends up spending a lot of time personally taking care of you, what's that worth post facto.
FWIW I don't know how the probate process is in your state, but you could look into a living trust to keep the process easier and more private. States that have adopted the uniform probate code are pretty straightforward, but ones that haven't can get somewhat tedious even for uncontested estates (eg publishing a list of all your assets in the public record).
TBH you probably have a gut feeling of whether your kids will work together or argue, and if you want to head off problems the only way is to talk about it ahead of time and plan for the things that will cause friction.
> One of them will have to step up and take the burden
Yes. They are not co-executors (they can choose how they divide the burden). And I know it is a burden; some people hire an accountant to do it for them. It took my sister about 6 months to do probate for my father. I'm glad I didn't have to shoulder that.
So as far as I'm concerned, that's up to them. I trust them both. I trust them not to fight. But in the end, even if you've done your best to set things up properly, people can still find a way to generate a conflict.
Most of the legacy happens to be a couple of homes; they'd be hard to divide, but both my kids have their own homes. I imagine they'll just sell both properties. I appreciate your remarks about divisible land legacies; my property isn't easily divisible. At any rate, my will is quite clear; the division is to be 50:50.
I really hope neither of them ends up having to care for me; but if that should happen, I suppose I'd just compensate them for their trouble while I'm still alive.
Trusts can be simple or byzantine. I don't think I need to make a trust at all. My affairs aren't complicated, and there are no secrets. I mainly want to protect my legacy from my two ex-wives, who have each already taken everything they're entitled to.
Incidentally, I was a bit miffed that my Dad appointed my sister as sole executor; but I never mentioned that to anyone. Fact is, she is a competent maanager and administrator, and I'm not. He did the right thing.
IMO problems between honest people arise when an estate drags out due to large non-monetary assets like houses, causing legitimate differences in opinion. If they both just want to sell it, that's easy. When one wants to keep it to live in, or if there is a lot of land and someone wants to subdivide to get more money, then you get into arguments. Or other intangibles like if one of them ends up spending a lot of time personally taking care of you, what's that worth post facto.
FWIW I don't know how the probate process is in your state, but you could look into a living trust to keep the process easier and more private. States that have adopted the uniform probate code are pretty straightforward, but ones that haven't can get somewhat tedious even for uncontested estates (eg publishing a list of all your assets in the public record).
TBH you probably have a gut feeling of whether your kids will work together or argue, and if you want to head off problems the only way is to talk about it ahead of time and plan for the things that will cause friction.