This is a common estate planning idea, especially for parents with multiple children. The thinking usually goes something like this: “If I name both children together, no one feels left out.” Or, “It seems like too much responsibility for one person.” Or, “They can keep each other honest.”
If you are wondering whether naming co-trustees (or co-successor trustees) of your revocable living trust is a good idea, my answer is no.
A trustee is a job. It is not an honorary family title, a prize, or a statement about equal love. It is a real fiduciary role governed by California law, and it is entirely manageable by one competent person who knows when and how to hire appropriate professionals.
So when clients suggest co-trustees, I ask a simple question: why?
“It Feels Like Too Much For One Person”
If your concern is that the trustee role feels like too much responsibility for one person, adding a second trustee is not the solution.
The trustee’s job is absolutely manageable by one competent person. Trustees are not expected to personally know how to do everything themselves. A good trustee hires attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, real estate professionals, and other appropriate experts when needed.
Adding a second trustee does not reduce complexity. It adds another decision-maker.
Now both trustees need to participate in decisions, sign documents, communicate with professionals, and stay aligned. In practice, this makes trust administration slower, more cumbersome, and more expensive.
If your concern is that one person cannot handle the job alone, the answer is not “add another trustee.” The answer is to pick another person to be the trustee.
By the way, for more details as to what the trustee actually has to do, please read THIS ARTICLE.
And if the reason you’re thinking the job of the Trustee is too much for one person because your one person is a young adult, please read THIS ARTICLE.
“They Can Keep Each Other Honest”
This sounds reasonable until you think about it.
If you do not trust someone to serve alone, adding a second person to “watch” them is not a solution. It is an awkward workaround for choosing the wrong trustee in the first place.
If honesty, judgment, or reliability are concerns, choose someone you actually trust.
“I Don’t Want To Hurt Anyone’s Feelings”
This is probably the most common emotional reason clients suggest co-trustees.
Parents do not want one child to feel excluded, less trusted, or less important.
But trustee selection is not a family diplomacy exercise. It is a staffing decision.
And candidly, being a trustee is often a stressful, time-consuming, thankless job. This is not like deciding who gets a special honor. The relevant question is not how to avoid upsetting anyone. It is who is actually the most capable person for the job.
“But Isn’t Two Better Than One?”
Not here.
Trust administration involves judgment calls, time-sensitive decisions, money, legal obligations, beneficiary expectations, and ongoing communication with attorneys, accountants, financial institutions, and advisors.
When clients propose co-trustees, I often ask another simple question: have these two people ever had to make even one important decision together?
That question usually gets a reaction.
Because getting along as siblings is not the same thing as successfully making joint decisions under pressure, with deadlines, money, conflicting opinions, and legal obligations involved.
And when co-trustees disagree, trust administration stalls.
If they disagree about selling a house, making a distribution, choosing an advisor, responding to beneficiary demands, or any other meaningful issue, there may be no practical way forward without California Probate Court involvement to help get them unstuck—which is particularly ironic given that one major goal of estate planning is usually to avoid court involvement in the first place.
Co-trustees also create additional legal expense from the beginning. Because co-trustees are separate fiduciaries whose interests may diverge, each trustee generally needs separate legal representation in their trustee role. If the relationship deteriorates enough that they begin litigating against each other, now the trust is paying for California probate litigation as well.
Even without major conflict, practical day-to-day problems remain. If one trustee is slower to respond, less organized, overwhelmed, indecisive, traveling, or simply less engaged, the more capable trustee cannot simply move the administration forward efficiently because both trustees are still required to participate.
Adding decision-makers does not create efficiency. It creates friction, delay, and expense.
Bottom Line
If one person is competent and trustworthy, you do not need two trustees.
If one person is not the right choice to serve alone, adding another person is not the solution. The solution is choosing a different trustee entirely.
Trustee selection is not about fairness or avoiding hurt feelings. It is about putting the most capable person in charge of an important legal job.