Will - unusual/usual clause??

no1catman

Hi, interested to know if anyone has come across the follwing clause in a will. And in what circumstances it would be deemed appropriate.

But expresslyexcluding the issue of xxxxxxxy xxxx xxxxx in the event of his failing tosurvive me prior to or by 28 days in which case his share to aaaa a aaaaa andbbbbbbbb b bbbbbbbbb in equal shares

Xs As & Bs were the entered names.

Any/all comments appreciated.

System

Yes it is a fairly standard clause.
It just means that if xxx dies either before that person or within 28 days of that person then xxx's share does not pass to his children but is shared between aaa & bbb.

Mojisola

If a legacy is left to someone who dies first, the legacy can sometimes be passed on to their direct blood relations. It sounds as if, in this case, the legacy is for that individual only and, if he/she has died, the legacy will be distributed to other people.

The 28 day rule is often used if the people concerned spend time together or travel together and may be fatally injured in the same accident.

podperson

It's not uncommon by any means. If they had named someone in their will who had passed away before them then there could be confusion over what would happen to that share - ie would it go back into the general estate, would it go to the deceased person's next of kin, or would it be split between the other beneficies. This person has made their wishes in those circumstances very clear - which is quite sensible imo.

WestonDave

It can also be sensible tax planning - suppose the person writing the will is within the IHT threshold so will pay no inheritance tax, but person XXX would be pushed over the threshold by their share in this estate. By passing the inheritance straight to a and b who are posssibly the beneficiaries in X's will anyway, you avoid it getting caught for inheritance tax in X's estate.

jackyann

Yes, I have known it done, and heard others talk of it.
I guess it might be done if the will maker disapproved of x's offspring, or worried that they might waste money. But these are the circumstances I know of:
A family heirloom, willed to a sibling, but if they pre-decease, then to a cousin (grandchild of the original owner)
A special piece of jewellery with meaning to a friend. Willed to the friend, as a memento, but not to her children.

no1catman

!!!!!! wrote: »

Yes it is a fairly standard clause.
It just means that if xxx dies either before that person or within 28 days of that person then xxx's share does not pass to his children but is shared between aaa & bbb.

Thanks, for the info - e.g. if there were both in a car crash both 'x' died not instantly like the father, but a few weeks later as a result of the injuries. So, yes I can understand the '28 days bit, it's the other part that gets me.
Why shouldn't 'X's' amount be passed to his children (who incidentally didn't exist at the time of the will) - but will need it all the more. Or is it a guard rail in case some wild seed that germinated suddenly appears makes a claim!?
On the one hand seems an insult to an offspring that might occur, against safeguarding against any 'skeletons' at loose!

Savvy_Sue

no1catman wrote: »

Why shouldn't 'X's' amount be passed to his children (who incidentally didn't exist at the time of the will) - but will need it all the more. Or is it a guard rail in case some wild seed that germinated suddenly appears makes a claim!?
On the one hand seems an insult to an offspring that might occur, against safeguarding against any 'skeletons' at loose!

That is a question you would have to ask the Testator (person making the will).

My mother's will specifically excludes her grandchildren, should one of my siblings or I predecease her. She says she doesn't really know the grandchildren and rarely sees them. I think that's hardly their fault. I am fairly sure that if the situation arises, the surviving siblings will go for a Deed of Variation so that the bereaved grandchildren don't miss out.

Jinx

This clause would work for me - if hubby and I were in a car accident (to use the above example) and I died all my money would go to him which is fine. However if he then died I wouldnt want the cash going to his family, I would want it reverting to my daughter (we dont have children together).

Mojisola

no1catman wrote: »

Why shouldn't 'X's' amount be passed to his children (who incidentally didn't exist at the time of the will) - but will need it all the more. Or is it a guard rail in case some wild seed that germinated suddenly appears makes a claim!?

On the one hand seems an insult to an offspring that might occur, against safeguarding against any 'skeletons' at loose!

In England and Wales, the Testator has the right to leave his/her money and possessions to whoever he/she wants.

Someone's estate isn't like means-tested benefits that go to whoever needs it most. Maybe the Testator would really like to leave something to 'a' and 'b' but doesn't feel there is enough to leave so has compromised by deciding that if 'x' dies first, the other two can share the gift?

no1catman

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

That is a question you would have to ask the Testator (person making the will).

Sadly I can't 'passed away' in March. Only recently got a copy of the will from the Probate Office.