An Executor's Duty to Maintain Estate Property in Texas: Section 351.101, the Bond, and Who Pays

Most people appointed executor in Texas are told about deadlines, inventories and notices. Far fewer are told that the moment letters issue, a statute makes them responsible for the physical condition of every building the estate owns — and that neglecting it can reach the sureties on their bond. The duty is short, specific, and quoted in full below.

What Section 351.101 Actually Says

Texas Estates Code Section 351.101 is headed DUTY OF CARE and reads in full: "An executor or administrator of an estate shall take care of estate property as a prudent person would take of that person's own property, and if any buildings belong to the estate, the executor or administrator shall keep those buildings in good repair, except for extraordinary casualties, unless directed by a court order not to do so." It was added by Acts 2009, 81st Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 680 (H.B. 2502), Section 1, effective January 1, 2014.

Two obligations sit in that one sentence, and they are often read as one. The first is a general prudent-person standard over all estate property. The second is specific and higher: buildings are not merely to be prudently managed, they are to be kept in good repair. A representative who would not let their own house sit open to the weather has the answer to what the first clause requires; the second clause removes the argument that a vacant estate house is somebody else's problem until it sells.

The Liability Runs Through the Bond

Section 351.101 states the duty but carries no penalty of its own. The consequence sits in Section 351.003, CERTAIN COSTS ADJUDGED AGAINST PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: if a personal representative neglects to perform a required duty or is removed for cause, "the representative and the sureties on the representative's bond are liable for" the costs of removal and other additional costs that are not expenditures authorized by the title, plus reasonable attorney's fees incurred in removing the representative or in "obtaining compliance regarding any statutory duty the representative has neglected."

That last phrase is the one to read twice. A beneficiary who has to go to court to make an executor maintain the house is seeking compliance with a statutory duty, and the fees of doing so are recoverable — from the representative and from the bond. For a corporate fiduciary or a bonded individual, that is the difference between a family argument and a claim on the bond.

Section 351.151 Is Not This Duty

A common error, including in secondary summaries, is to pair the maintenance duty with Section 351.151 because that section contains the words "wilfully neglects" and reaches the bond sureties. It is the wrong provision. Section 351.151 sits in Subchapter D, COLLECTION OF CLAIMS; RECOVERY OF PROPERTY, and its ordinary-diligence standard applies where "there is a reasonable prospect of collecting the claims or recovering the property of an estate." Its liability is measured by "the amount of those claims or the value of that property lost by the neglect" — a claims-collection remedy, not a building-condition one. Anyone citing it for a maintenance obligation is citing the wrong subchapter, and a probate attorney will notice.

Who Pays, and the Condition Attached

Maintaining an estate property is not meant to come out of the executor's pocket. Section 352.051 entitles a personal representative, "on proof satisfactory to the court," to "necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by the representative in preserving, safekeeping, and managing the estate," along with reasonable attorney's fees necessarily incurred in connection with the proceedings and management of the estate.

The reimbursement is real, and so is the condition. "On proof satisfactory to the court" is doing the work in that sentence. An executor who presents a stack of invoices and a recollection is asking a judge to approve a number. An executor who presents dated photographs of each visit, a work order per task and a record of what the building looked like before and after is presenting evidence. In a contested estate — which is where these questions actually get asked — that distinction decides whether the expense is allowed.

What This Means for a Vacant Estate House

The statute sets a standard rather than a schedule, so the practical scope is whatever a prudent owner would do and whatever keeps a building in repair. For an empty house between death and sale, that is a narrow and predictable list.

• Secure the building against unauthorized entry, and keep it secured
• Keep the grounds to local code so the property does not accrue municipal violations the estate must then pay
• Prevent water and weather damage — the deterioration an "extraordinary casualties" defence will not cover
• Maintain insurability; a vacant building can fall outside the terms of the policy that covered it when occupied
• Record every visit with dated photographs, so the Section 352.051 proof exists before it is needed
• Keep one file per property, because the accounting will be read by people who were not there

Extraordinary Casualties, and the Court-Order Exception

Section 351.101 carries two express limits. The duty does not extend to extraordinary casualties, and it yields to a court order directing the representative not to repair. Both are narrower than they first appear. The casualty exception addresses sudden, exceptional loss, not the ordinary consequence of leaving a building unattended for a year. The court-order exception requires an order — a decision by the executor that repair is not worth it, taken alone, is not within it. Where the estate genuinely cannot or should not fund repair, the route is to seek direction from the court, not to make the judgment privately and defend it later.