Donate SIGN UP

Wills - Leaving Stuff To X But Not X's Children

Avatar Image
Peter Pedant | 10:57 Thu 08th Aug 2019 | Law
9 Answers
Hi chris
someone has asked me about his will.
he has a devisable asset ( thing, in simple speak) which he wishes to leave to A B and C in equa (thirds)l parts, and if one is dead NOT to the dead ones children or heirs but then only to A and B in equal (halves) parts. ( opposite of per stirpes)

will ( haha pun intended)
I leave X to A B and C if more than one living at the time this will takes effect then in equal parts absolutely
do the trick - or is there more looby-gooby to it?
thanks - he thanks you as well ( not it is not me)
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Avatar Image
"If more than one in equal shares" should do it. Altho Chris' answer deals with s 33 wills act which applies to children/issue of the deceased.
23:02 Thu 08th Aug 2019
Would saying you leave X to A,B and C "per capita" not do the trick? That would mean only those alive at the time of the distribution (not any of their heirs) would receive an equal share.
"I give X to A, B and C in equal shares. Should one of the aforementioned persons not survive me for thirty days, I give X in equal shares to the two surviving persons. Should two of the aforementioned persons fail to survive me for a period of thirty days I give X in its entirety to the sole survivor. Should none of the aforementioned persons survive me for a period of thirty days, X shall form part of my residuary estate "

Typed on my phone in a pub and probably in need of tidying up but it should be clear enough!
Question Author
thanks - both
no room for flowery language there
actually the form has a recursive structure which wont be of interest to anyone
man thx again
PP
the records office at Kew is full of wills written in Suffolk pubs - none has ever been successfully challenged.
Question Author
ah - the Kew library is full also of
C18 wills causes ( heard by the ecclesiatical authorities and then courts of chancery) and 80% are started by women ( gurlz as I call them) who felt they had not had their share
and the other 80% ( some overlap I agree) were over non cupative wills (oral)

the rationale of the wills act 1837 was partly that if they stopped oral wills, then they would save more than 50% court time.

and in the instant case, the testator has just survived a sepsis episode ( +ve blood cultures), and whilst sweaty clammy and plucking at his bed clothes ( subsultus tendinum)in Hospital, not even cold let alone dead, A, B D and E met to discuss how to subdivide X (yeah right D and E arent mentioned in the will)
I laughed a tinkly laugh hahahahaha which didnt go down well with X A or B. X A B or C are not my relations
"If more than one in equal shares" should do it. Altho Chris' answer deals with s 33 wills act which applies to children/issue of the deceased.
Question Author
many thanks all
and special thanks and kisses to both Barmaid and Chris
sleep well sweet cuz (*)

and I am glad to say the would be dead man is showing all the signs of resurrection.

(*) bofe - Shakespeare was an east ender
Shakespeare lived all over, didn't he? In Blackfriars, Bankside and Barbican as well as Shoreditch. Plus Warks.
glad to hear that reports of your mate's death are greatly exaggerated

1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Wills - Leaving Stuff To X But Not X's Children

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.