Updated July 31, 2026. Quick answer: in most states there is no percentage — the statute says only that executor compensation must be “reasonable,” and the probate judge decides what that means. The factors courts actually weigh: the estate’s size and complexity, hours documented, the skill the work demanded, results obtained, local custom, and whether the executor hired professionals to do the hard parts.
How reasonable gets decided in practice
Documentation is the fee. In a formula state the statute does the arguing; in a reasonable-compensation state, a contemporaneous log of hours and tasks is the difference between an approved fee and a family fight. Courts routinely cut undocumented requests and approve documented ones at similar percentages to the statutory states — the schedules in the calculator are a sane sanity-check range even where they do not bind.
The will can set the fee — a stated amount or method generally controls, and accepting the role usually means accepting the terms. Beneficiary consent beats litigation — a fee all heirs sign off on rarely gets judicial scrutiny; circulate the number before invoicing. And corporate executors publish fee schedules (typically percentage-based and higher than family executors charge) — useful as a court exhibit for what the market price of the work is.
If you are in California, New York, Texas or Florida, your state has an actual formula: CA · NY · TX · FL. The tax side: is the fee taxable.
Which states actually work this way
Four states we have worked through in detail are reasonable-compensation states in the full sense — no percentage anywhere in the statute — and each one hands the decision to a different body, which is what changes the practical answer:
- Pennsylvania — no fee statute at all. The widely quoted Johnson estate schedule is Orphans’ Court custom, not law, and quoting it as law is the common mistake.
- Virginia — no statutory percentage either, but the fee is effectively decided by the Commissioner of Accounts for the circuit, a court-appointed officer who audits the accounting.
- Washington — “just and reasonable” by statute, and structurally distinct: under nonintervention powers nobody reviews the fee at all unless a beneficiary objects.
- Michigan — reasonable under EPIC, with no fee schedule, but Michigan levies a value-scaled probate inventory fee that most states do not.
The schedule states are not all the same either
“My state has a percentage” is not one answer. Among the states with a written schedule, the schedule plays five different roles — and the role decides whether the number is a target, a limit, or a starting point:
- Iowa — the schedule is a ceiling: reasonable fees as the court determines, “but not in excess of” the listed commissions.
- Missouri — the schedule is a floor. The court allows more where reasonable compensation exceeds it, which is the opposite of how nearly everyone reads a percentage table.
- Georgia — 2.5% in and 2.5% out is a default that applies only where the will is silent and there is no agreement; a will can displace it entirely.
- Ohio — a statutory 4/3/2% commission plus 1% on real property that is not sold and 1% on certain non-probate property.
- New Jersey — two commissions, corpus and income, and most summaries mention only the first.
The market comparison the paragraph above points at is worth reading in full where a professional fiduciary is in play: what banks and trust companies charge to serve as executor or trustee.
Where the schedules actually land: we read every jurisdiction’s compensation statute at its own official source on 13 August 2026, and only 15 of the 34 that could be retrieved set a computable number at all. States with the highest executor fees ranks those 15 on an identical estate and names, with the citation and the reason, every jurisdiction that publishes no figure — including Colorado, which repealed its schedule outright in 2011.
Two things worth knowing before the fee question matters at all: the personal-liability trap an executor can walk into, and the mistakes executors most often make.
Executor fee by state: the rest of the map
Every jurisdiction below decides the executor’s fee some way other than a single flat percentage schedule; each row is that state’s own quick answer, from its own detail page.
| State | Quick answer |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Alabama uses a reasonable-compensation standard with a hard percentage ceiling layered on top. Ala. Code § 43-2-848 entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation as appears fair to the probate court, considering factors like the novelty and difficulty of the administration, the skill required, the customary local fee, the results obtained, and the personal representative’s experience and risk, but the reasonable fee cannot exceed 2.5% of the value of all property received and under the personal representative’s possession and control, plus a separate 2.5% of all disbursements. Because those are two separate 2.5% streams, a personal representative who both receives and disburses the same assets can reach close to 5% total, and subsection (b) allows additional reasonable compensation for extraordinary services on top of that cap. |
| Alaska | Alaska sets no percentage, no schedule, and no statutory factors. Alaska Stat. §§ 13.16.430, 13.16.440 entitle a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services, and the personal representative sets that fee themselves in the first instance, without prior court approval. Any interested person can later petition the court under § 13.16.440 to review the reasonableness of that self-set fee, and a personal representative found to have taken excessive compensation can be ordered to make refunds. |
| Arizona | Arizona sets no percentage or schedule. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3719 entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for his services in a single short paragraph, with no enumerated factors for the court to weigh. If a will sets the personal representative’s compensation and there is no separate contract with the decedent about it, the personal representative may renounce the will’s clause before qualifying and take reasonable compensation instead, and may renounce all or part of their compensation by filing a written renunciation with the court. |
| Arkansas | Arkansas executor compensation is governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-108, which lets the court award compensation it deems just and reasonable, but caps that award at a three-tier percentage schedule: 10% of the first $1,000, 5% of the next $4,000, and 3% of everything above $5,000 in personal property that has been fully administered. A $100,000 personal estate tops out at $3,150; $500,000 tops out at $15,150; $1,000,000 tops out at $30,150. Real property is not part of this base; subsection (b) allows a separate reasonable fee, fixed by the court, for substantial work on real property. |
| California | California executor compensation is set by Probate Code §10800: 4% of the first $100,000, 3% of the next $100,000, 2% of the next $800,000, 1% of the next $9,000,000, 0.5% of the next $15,000,000, with the court setting a reasonable amount above $25M. A $500,000 probate estate pays $13,000; $1,000,000 pays $23,000. The estate attorney earns the identical schedule again (§10810), so a $1M probate pays $46,000 in combined statutory fees before costs. |
| Colorado | Colorado sets no percentage or schedule for executors specifically anymore. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-10-602 (current); former § 15-12-719 repealed 2011 reflects the current governing provision, which entitles a fiduciary and his or her lawyer to reasonable compensation for services rendered on behalf of an estate. The former personal-representative-specific section, § 15-12-719, was repealed effective August 10, 2011, by the same bill that created this unified standard, which now covers personal representatives alongside guardians, conservators, trustees, and agents under a power of attorney. The court retains inherent authority to determine reasonableness whenever appropriate. |
| Connecticut | Connecticut sets no statutory percentage for an executor’s fee. Compensation is governed by Probate Court Rules of Procedure, Rule 39, which requires the Probate Court to determine whether the fee is reasonable, whether or not anyone objects. The court applies a nine-factor test traced to Hayward v. Plant (1923), and that review happens automatically alongside the fiduciary’s financial account, not only on request. |
| Delaware | Delaware’s compensation statute does not set its own standard. 12 Del. C. § 2305 instead delegates the standard to Court of Chancery Rule 192, and conditions any commission on two gating requirements: timely filing of the required account and compliance with Title 30, Chapter 13 tax-filing requirements. Miss either one, and the Court of Chancery can reduce the commission before it ever weighs whether the amount itself is reasonable. |
| District of Columbia | The District of Columbia entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation under D.C. Code § 20-751, and the statute itself lists no enumerated factors. Reasonableness is reviewed by the Superior Court, Probate Division, but only upon request of an interested person, it is not automatic. An older guideline, Probate Division Rule 125’s 4.5% to 8% combined fee range for the personal representative and attorney together, applied only to decedents who died before July 1, 1995, and has no force for current estates. |
| Florida | Florida’s personal-representative fee (Fla. Stat. §733.617) is presumed reasonable at 3% of the first $1,000,000 of compensable value, 2.5% from $1M–$5M, 2% from $5M–$10M, and 1.5% above; so $30,000 on a $1M estate. “Presumed” is the operative word: the will can set different terms, interested parties can challenge, and the court can adjust for the work actually done. |
| Georgia | Georgia’s 2.5% in and 2.5% out is a default, not a floor or a ceiling. It applies only where the will does not provide compensation and there is no agreement. A Georgia will that states the executor’s compensation displaces the statute entirely; which is why reading the will comes before reading the code. |
| Hawaii | Hawaii’s Uniform Probate Code provision, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:3-719, entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation and lets them determine that compensation themselves in the first instance, paying it without pre-approval. The probate court reviews reasonableness under the companion statute, HRS §560:3-721, but only after notice to interested persons, on petition of an interested person, or on motion if the administration is supervised. No enumerated factor list appears in the statute itself. |
| Idaho | Idaho Code § 15-3-719 entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services, with no percentage, schedule, or factor list in the text. The provision was enacted in 1971 as part of Idaho’s early adoption of the Uniform Probate Code and has not been amended since, it remains word-for-word the original 1969 Uniform Probate Code §3-719 language. Reasonableness is subject to the probate court’s later review under Idaho Code §15-3-721. |
| Illinois | 755 ILCS 5/27-1 entitles a representative to reasonable compensation for services, with no statutory factor list, the Probate Act leaves the term undefined and committed to the probate court’s discretion. What is distinctive is priority: a fee allowed under Section 27-1 is classified as a first-class claim for administrative expenses, payable ahead of most other claims against the estate. The statute also carves out two narrow exclusions from compensation entirely. |
| Indiana | Indiana Code § 29-1-10-13 lets a will set the personal representative’s compensation, and if it does, that provision is the full fee unless the representative files a written renunciation before qualifying. Absent a will provision, or after a valid renunciation, the probate court allows whatever compensation it deems just and reasonable. The same just and reasonable standard also covers an attorney’s fee for estate work. |
| Iowa | Iowa’s schedule is a ceiling. The statute allows such reasonable fees as the court determines, “but not in excess of” the listed commissions; so the percentages are the most that can be paid, not an entitlement, and courts routinely allow less. |
| Kansas | K.S.A. 59-1717 entitles a fiduciary to compensation for services, and for those of his or her attorneys, that is just and reasonable, with no statutory factors defining the term. The more distinctive rule sits in a companion statute, K.S.A. 59-1504: a will’s compensation provision controls as the executor’s full compensation unless the executor files a written instrument renouncing all claim to it, after which the just-and-reasonable standard applies instead. The fiduciary can also apply mid-administration for an interim allowance rather than waiting for final settlement. |
| Kentucky | Kentucky executor compensation is capped by KRS §395.150(1) at 5% of the value of the decedent’s personal estate, plus a separate 5% of any income the executor collects while administering the estate. Real property is not part of either base; it only affects the fee indirectly, as grounds for additional court-approved compensation under subsection (2) if the executor also handled real-estate or tax matters connected to property outside the probate estate. A $500,000 personal estate pays a $25,000 ceiling; $100,000 pays $5,000; $1,000,000 pays $50,000; each figure assumes the whole amount is personal property, before any separate income-collection commission. |
| Louisiana | Louisiana executor compensation defaults to a flat 2.5% of the amount of the inventory under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3351, applied whenever the testament is silent on the point and the administrator or executor has not agreed on a different fee with the surviving spouse and all competent heirs or legatees. A $100,000 inventory pays $2,500; a $500,000 inventory pays $12,500; a $1,000,000 inventory pays $25,000. Louisiana calls this role a succession representative, executor if the estate is testate and administrator if intestate, and a court can raise the commission above 2.5% on a proper showing that the usual rate is inadequate. |
| Maine | Maine entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services under 18-C M.R.S. §3-719 (compensation); §3-721 (review factors). There is no statutory percentage and no upfront court approval step. The personal representative initially sets its own fee, and the probate court reviews that fee only reactively, on petition of an interested person or an appropriate motion in a supervised administration, applying the review factors in §3-721. |
| Maryland | Maryland caps personal representative compensation at Md. Code, Est. & Trusts §7-601(b)(2): 9% of the first $20,000 of property subject to administration, plus 3.6% of everything above that. A $100,000 estate pays a $4,680 ceiling; $500,000 pays $19,080; $1,000,000 pays $37,080. The commission is discretionary up to that cap; the personal representative is entitled only to “reasonable compensation,” and the court sets the actual amount. |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts sets no statutory percentage for executor compensation. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, § 3-719 entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services, and that is all the section itself says; no factors are listed in the statute. What counts as reasonable in a given estate is left to the Probate and Family Court. |
| Michigan | Michigan sets no percentage schedule; compensation for the personal representative and attorneys is simply reasonable under EPIC. But Michigan does something most states do not: it charges the estate a value-scaled probate inventory fee, a court charge that rises with the estate and has nothing to do with anyone’s compensation. |
| Minnesota | Minnesota entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-719. Unlike most states that adopted the Uniform Probate Code’s bare reasonable-compensation language and left it undefined, Minnesota’s subsection (b) writes three factors directly into the statute: the time and labor required, the complexity and novelty of the problems involved, and the extent of the responsibilities assumed and the results obtained. The court applies that test. |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-299 lets the chancery court allow the executor or administrator such sum as it deems proper, considering the value and worth of the estate and the difficulty of the duties discharged. That compensation can be set at partial or final settlements, not only at the close of the estate. The same section separately allows necessary expenses, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, in an amount the court determines. |
| Missouri | Missouri’s percentage schedule is a minimum; a floor, not a cap. The court shall allow more where reasonable compensation exceeds it. That is the opposite of how most people read a fee schedule, and the exact opposite of neighbouring Iowa, whose near-identical schedule is a ceiling. |
| Montana | Montana entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services under Mont. Code Ann. § 72-3-631. There is no percentage schedule today. Montana used to cap compensation at 3% of the first $40,000 of estate value plus 2% of the excess, but Laws 2019, Ch. 313, §74 deleted that entire schedule, so any source still citing Montana’s old percentages is describing law that is no longer in effect. |
| Nebraska | Nebraska entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2480 (reasonableness factors at § 30-2482). Reasonableness is measured by four factors: the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the service properly, the fee customarily charged locally for similar services, and the amount involved and the results obtained, together with the experience, reputation and ability of the person performing the services. The county court applies that standard, per In re Estate of Gsantner, 288 Neb. 222, 846 N.W.2d 646 (2014). |
| Nevada | Nevada’s NRS 150.020(1) commission (4% of the first $15,000, 3% of the next $85,000, and 2% above $100,000) applies only “if no compensation is provided by the will, or the personal representative renounces” the will’s terms. On the statutory default, $100,000 pays $3,150; $500,000 pays $11,150; $1,000,000 pays $21,150. If the fee under the schedule turns out too small, subsection (4) lets the court award more; the table is a default floor a court can exceed, not a hard ceiling. |
| New Hampshire | New Hampshire has no statute on point. Fees are governed instead by NH Circuit Court, Probate Division, Rule 88, which requires that fees and expenses of fiduciaries and attorneys be subject to the approval of the court and reasonable for the work, responsibility, and risk involved. The Circuit Court, Probate Division approves and reviews those fees. |
| New Jersey | New Jersey pays the executor two statutory commissions, not one: a corpus commission on the estate’s principal and a separate 6% income commission on income the estate earns during administration. Almost every summary online mentions only the first. |
| New York | New York executor commissions (SCPA 2307) are 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of the next $200,000, 3% of the next $700,000, 2.5% of the next $4,000,000, and 2% above $5,000,000; computed on sums the executor receives and pays out, technically half for receiving and half for paying. A $1,000,000 estate produces a $34,000 commission; the highest big-state schedule in the country. |
| North Carolina | North Carolina executor compensation is capped by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-23-3 at up to 5% of the value of receipts the personal representative brings into the estate, with the clerk of superior court setting the actual amount in its discretion, considering the time, responsibility, trouble and skill involved. It is a ceiling, not an automatic entitlement; the clerk can also allow a separate commission of up to 5% on amounts actually expended administering the estate. A $500,000 estate received in full tops out at a $25,000 commission on receipts; $100,000 tops out at $5,000; $1,000,000 tops out at $50,000; each figure is the receipts-side maximum, before any separate expenditures commission the clerk may allow. |
| North Dakota | North Dakota sets no percentage or schedule. N.D. Cent. Code § 30.1-18-19 entitles a personal representative only to reasonable compensation for services performed, the bare Uniform Probate Code formulation with no factors listed in the statute itself. The court decides what is reasonable, reviewing compensation on petition of an interested person or on its own motion under a companion section. |
| Ohio | Ohio’s executor commission is statutory; 4%, 3%, 2%; but the part that changes the answer is the two extra 1% charges: 1% on real property that is not sold, and 1% on certain property that never entered probate at all. An estate whose main asset is a house passing to the family is bigger than the headline percentages suggest. |
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma entitles an executor or administrator to a statutory commission under 58 O.S. §527(A): 5% of the first $1,000, 4% of the next $5,000, and 2.5% of everything above $6,000. Because those breakpoints are so low, the fee behaves like a nearly flat 2.5% for any estate of meaningful size: $100,000 pays $2,600 (an effective 2.60%), $500,000 pays $12,600 (2.52%), and $1,000,000 pays $25,100 (2.51%); the effective rate keeps drifting toward, but never quite reaches, the 2.5% marginal rate. |
| Oregon | Oregon entitles a personal representative to a commission under ORS 116.173(3)(a): 7% of the first $1,000, 4% of the next $9,000, 3% of the next $40,000, and 2% above $50,000 of the probate estate. On that schedule, $100,000 pays $2,630; $500,000 pays $10,630; $1,000,000 pays $20,630. A separate provision, (3)(b), adds another 1% on property that never enters probate but is still reportable for Oregon or federal estate tax (excluding life insurance), reaching beyond the assets the personal representative formally administers. |
| Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania has no statutory percentage for the executor. Compensation must be “reasonable and just.” The widely quoted Johnson estate schedule is an Orphans’ Court custom that courts often reference; it is not enacted law, and calling it “Pennsylvania’s statutory schedule” is simply wrong. |
| Rhode Island | Rhode Island sets no statutory percentage. R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-14-8 allows executors and administrators such compensation for their services as the probate court considers just, using that word rather than reasonable. The probate court approves the amount as a line item within the executor’s or administrator’s accounts, rather than through a separate fee petition. |
| South Carolina | South Carolina caps personal representative compensation at S.C. Code §62-3-719(a): not to exceed 5% of the appraised value of the probate estate’s personal property, plus the sale proceeds of any real property sold under a will directive or court order. A separate provision, (b), allows up to another 5% of income the estate earns during administration. A $500,000 probate estate of qualifying property pays a $25,000 ceiling; $100,000 pays $5,000; $1,000,000 pays $50,000, with a $50 minimum commission regardless of estate size (a). Real property distributed in kind, rather than sold, contributes nothing to the base. |
| South Dakota | South Dakota’s default commission schedule under S.D. Codified Laws § 29A-3-719 applies when compensation is not provided by will, or in an intestate proceeding: 5% on the first $1,000 of personal property accounted for, 4% on the next $4,000, and 2.5% on everything above $5,000. A $100,000 estate pays $2,585; a $500,000 estate pays $12,585; a $1,000,000 estate pays $25,085. Real property is compensated separately at a just and reasonable rate the court fixes, except real estate sold during the probate is treated as personal property for this schedule. |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-606 does not grant the executor a fee directly. It instructs the clerk, in settling the accounting, to charge the accounting party with money received or collectible through due diligence, and to credit that party with reasonable compensation for services and with disbursements backed by lawful vouchers. The reasonable-compensation determination happens inside that clerk-run settlement and accounting process, under the court’s oversight. |
| Texas | the Texas “5% executor fee” is not 5% of the estate. Estates Code §352.002 pays 5% of cash the executor actually receives plus 5% of cash actually paid out; and expressly excludes the three biggest cash events in most estates: money already sitting in bank or brokerage accounts at death, life-insurance proceeds, and cash distributed to heirs. The whole commission is then capped at 5% of the estate’s gross fair market value. |
| Utah | Utah sets no fee schedule. Utah Code § 75-3-718 entitles a personal representative to reasonable compensation for services, and if an interested person actually objects, the probate court weighs the quality, quantity, and value of the services rendered, the circumstances under which they were rendered, and the practice of comparable fiduciaries. If nobody objects within the notice period, the statute deems the amount requested in the petition to be reasonable, with no independent court review at all. |
| Vermont | Vermont sets no percentage or schedule. 14 V.S.A. § 1065 allows an executor or administrator necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of the estate and reasonable fees for services, with no enumerated factors, left to the Probate Division of the Superior Court to decide case by case. Vermont’s default runs the opposite direction from most reasonable-compensation states: when the will makes its own provision for compensation, that provision is full satisfaction for the executor’s services, unless the executor files a written renunciation of it with the Probate Division, or the court orders otherwise. |
| Virginia | Virginia sets no statutory percentage. What actually decides an executor’s fee is the Commissioner of Accounts for the circuit; a court-appointed officer who audits the accounting and applies a published guideline scale. Those guidelines are local, not statewide, and they are guidelines. |
| Washington | Washington sets no percentage; the personal representative receives such compensation as the court deems just and reasonable. The bigger fact is structural: most Washington estates are administered with nonintervention powers, which keeps the court out almost entirely, so in practice nobody reviews the fee unless a beneficiary objects. |
| West Virginia | West Virginia’s personal representative commission, at W. Va. Code §44-4-12a(a), is a graduated schedule (5% of the first $100,000, 4% of the next $300,000, 3% of the next $400,000, and 2% above $800,000), not a flat rate. On a $100,000 estate that is $5,000; on $500,000 it is $20,000 (a blended 4.0%, which is where a flat-rate description comes from); on $1,000,000 it is $33,000 (a blended 3.3%). The commission runs on personal estate administered, income collected, and the proceeds of real estate that is sold. |
| Wisconsin | Wisconsin sets the lowest headline fee among the states with a written schedule: a flat 2% under Wis. Stat. §857.05(2), computed on the estate’s inventory value less mortgages and liens, plus any net principal gains realized during administration. $100,000 pays $2,000; $500,000 pays $10,000; $1,000,000 pays $20,000. Unlike most schedule states, the 2% is only a default; it can be changed by a written agreement between the decedent and the personal representative, or between the majority-interest heirs and the personal representative. |
| Wyoming | Wyoming’s §2-7-803(a) schedule opens at the highest headline rate of any state statute we have read, 10%, but only on the first $1,000 (a maximum of $100), then steps down to 5%, 3%, and 2% above $20,000. $100,000 pays $2,350; $500,000 pays $10,350; $1,000,000 pays $20,350, among the lowest figures of any state with a written schedule, because nearly the whole estate is taxed at the bottom 2% band. The estate’s attorney is entitled to the identical four-tier schedule under a separate section. |
Coverage, stated honestly: 50 of 51 jurisdictions; New Mexico has no published detail page in this family yet.