Some debts owed to my late relative's estate turned out uncollectible even though the administrator tried to collect them — is the administrator personally responsible for making up that shortfall?

Fault is the dividing line

The rule does not make an administrator an insurer of every debt owed to the estate. Whether the administrator owes the estate for an uncollected debt turns entirely on fault: if the debt genuinely could not be collected despite the administrator's diligent efforts, no accountability attaches, but the administrator remains exposed where the failure to collect traces back to their own neglect.

What this does not excuse

This protection is narrow. It shields the administrator only from debts that stayed uncollected without their fault, so an administrator who simply never pursued a collectible debt, let a claim prescribe, failed to sue before the limitations period ran, or otherwise failed to take the steps a diligent administrator would have taken cannot invoke this section to avoid accounting for the resulting loss to the estate.

Who the protection binds

The rule speaks specifically to executors and administrators, the persons the court has placed in charge of collecting what is owed to the estate. It does not excuse an administrator from pursuing the ordinary remedies available to collect a debt, such as demand or suit against the debtor, before concluding that a debt is genuinely uncollectible; the fault standard is measured against what a diligent administrator actually did to try to collect, not merely against the fact that payment never came in. A creditor of the estate, or an heir who believes an administrator was careless in pursuing a debt, can raise that question directly with the probate court during the settlement proceeding, rather than having to file a wholly separate lawsuit against the administrator.

Why the fault standard exists

Tying accountability to fault rather than to the mere fact of nonpayment reflects that some debts genuinely cannot be collected no matter how diligently pursued — a debtor may have become insolvent, disappeared, or gone judgment-proof. Requiring the administrator to personally make up every uncollectible debt regardless of effort would discourage capable people from serving as administrators, without actually recovering anything more for the estate's heirs. The same fault-based logic runs through the surrounding sections of this Rule, which likewise measure an administrator's liability by whether they acted with the diligence the office demands, rather than by strict, no-excuses accountability for every unfavorable outcome during the administration.

Related provisions

• Rule 85, Section 3 — When not accountable for debts due estate
• Rule 85, Section 2 — Not to profit by increase or lose by decrease in value
• Rule 85, Section 4 — Accountable for income from realty used by him