Inheritance question.

AnnaStezia

This is a purely hypothetical question arising from discussion.
Legal advice not sought or needed !

Testator T makes a will. T has 3 adult children. Will leaves a four way equal split between the children. No caveat in the will about survival of any child in order to inherit.

One child dies before testator. That child is married with children. Who inherits this child's share - his wife or his children ?

mickuhaha

AnnaStezia wrote: »

This is a purely hypothetical question arising from discussion.
Legal advice not sought or needed !

Testator T makes a will. T has 3 adult children. Will leaves a four way equal split between the children. No caveat in the will about survival of any child in order to inherit.

One child dies before testator. That child is married with children. Who inherits this child's share - his wife or his children ?

Neither

Spanish Eyes

Whatever his will says if he had one. He is deemed to have immediately survived the testator provided he had children. So his share from his parent will pass according to the will.

If no will then the survival principle still applies, but his share from parent passes according to the intestacy rules.

mickuhaha

Beneficiaries who have passed away before the deceased person are not entitled to a share of the deceased's estate.

Bikerman2019

Interesting. So in this case, if there is money for a deceased person, who gets it?

Spanish Eyes

mickuhaha wrote: »

Beneficiaries who have passed away before the deceased person are not entitled to a share of the deceased's estate.

Read my post above and also read Section 98 of the Succession Act 1965.

The beneficiary's share is preserved if they are a child of the testator with children.

Spanish Eyes

mickuhaha wrote: »

Beneficiaries who have passed away before the deceased person are not entitled to a share of the deceased's estate.

Only if they are not a child of the testator, or child of the testator with no children.

mickuhaha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Only if they are not a child of the testator, or child of the testator with no children.

I wish I knew this before now. Possibly alot of mistakes made. I'm sure no one will ever notice as I am sure no one else I work with knows this either. Thanks

Spanish Eyes

mickuhaha wrote: »

I wish I knew this before now. Possibly alot of mistakes made. I'm sure no one will ever notice as I am sure no one else I work with knows this either. Thanks

Keep the head down and say nothing. :pac:

Bikerman2019

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Interesting. So in this case, if there is money for a deceased person, who gets it?

There’s usually a clause regarding the “residue” of an estate. Whoever was left the residue gets the money.

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s usually a clause regarding the “residue” of an estate. Whoever was left the residue gets the money.

True, unless there is a clause saying if X predeceases me, I direct the share go to ABC or whomever.

If no will, it just goes back into the estate of the deceased and is divided amongst those eligible to inherit under the intestacy rules.

We're talking here about someone who is not a child of the deceased, or is a child with no children. Their inheritance lapses.

Esel

Would it not be common for a will to include a per stirpes clause to ensure a share goes to a dead beneficiary's children (that beneficiary being a child of the testator)?

AnnaStezia

Thanks all.

Now I know why the conversation on this got complicated !!!

I meant to say in original post that it was a 3 way split between 3 adult children

Claw Hammer

Esel wrote: »

Would it not be common for a will to include a per stirpes clause to ensure a share goes to a dead beneficiary's children (that beneficiary being a child of the testator)?

Therapy no need for it because it would go to the dead person's estate and be distributed according as that person had stipulated in his will which presumably is fairer than a per stirpes allocation.