The administrator of my late relative's estate has been dragging their feet on collecting debts owed to the estate and on paying out money already in hand — is there a legal consequence for that kind of delay?

Delay itself can be 'waste'

The rule treats unreasonable delay as its own kind of harm, separate from any outright misappropriation. Neglecting or unreasonably delaying to raise money by collecting debts or selling estate property, or neglecting to pay over money already in hand, is deemed waste whenever it lessens the estate's value, generates unnecessary cost or interest, or causes loss to the interested parties.

Three specific failures covered

The provision reaches delay in collecting debts owed to the estate, delay in selling estate property when that is needed to raise funds, and simple failure to pay over money the administrator already holds, covering the main ways an administrator's foot-dragging can quietly erode the estate's value over time, sometimes without anyone noticing until it is too late. Each of the three failures shares the same underlying harm: money that should be working for the heirs and creditors instead sits idle, uncollected, or unspent while the estate absorbs whatever cost that delay creates.

The bond is what backs it up

Where such waste is found, the resulting damage is charged and allowed against the administrator in their account, and the administrator is made liable for it on their bond, giving the heirs and creditors a concrete source of recovery rather than a finding of fault with no practical remedy attached. Because the bond exists precisely to answer for this kind of loss, interested parties are not left to chase the administrator's personal assets directly; they can instead proceed against the bond once the waste and the resulting damage are established in the settlement proceeding.

Not every delay counts as waste

The rule is not triggered by ordinary delay; it requires the neglect or delay to be unreasonable, and it requires that the estate's value was actually lessened, or that unnecessary cost or interest accrued, or that the interested persons suffered loss as a result. An administrator with a legitimate reason for pausing collection, such as a genuine dispute over whether a debt is even owed, is not automatically exposed simply because money sat uncollected for some period of time.

Related provisions

• Rule 85, Section 5 — Accountable if he neglects or delays to raise or pay money
• Rule 85, Section 4 — Accountable for income from realty used by him
• Rule 85, Section 6 — When allowed money paid as costs