Sometimes co-executors disagree for moral or ethical reasons. For example, the executors may have discretionary authority to provide a distribution to one of several beneficiaries, and one of the executors may be morally opposed to supporting, say, a specific religious organization that the other executor wants to support. The executor with the moral dilemma can choose to abstain from voting, which will effectively allow the other executor to move forward with the action without forcing the first executor to support a cause in which she does not personally believe. This, of course, requires some level of cooperation between the two executors.
Wills that appoint co-executors often provide a backup plan to resolve anticipated stalemates between the executors. If the will provisions allow for a tie-breaking vote, the co-executors can obtain that vote from a third party. The will may or may not identify the specific person entitled to cast the tie-breaking vote. However, if a will does not expressly allow for the use of a third party in this manner, the co-executors cannot use this as a solution.
Sometimes the only way for co-executors to work together is through coercive action in court. State probate judges have the legal authority to resolve disputes between co-executors. The judge will typically hold a hearing at which both executors have the opportunity to present their arguments. Afterward, the judge will issue an order in favor of one of the executors and both executors must comply with that judicial order.
Not just anybody can file a lawsuit to resolve co-executor conflicts. Generally, most state laws require the person filing the lawsuit to prove that he has standing with respect to the will, which generally means he has some interest in the probate of the will. For instance, both of the executors have standing as do each of the beneficiaries identified in the will.