Advice on will after death of a beneficiary

JimmyTheWig

G6JNS wrote: »

If the testator wanted to change her will accordingly she could have done so.

Agreed. Though I am sure that there are many people who don't do this.

The will made it explicitly clear what was to happen in the case of any of the beneficiaries pre-deceasing the testator so she did anticipate the possibility that this might happen. So your theory is just wrong.

I believe that the consensus on here is that the will states the money should be split 7 ways. In which case family B get the same as family C. Which fits my theory. So I don't see how it is wrong?
[Or have I mis-understood the consensus? Or are you disagreeing with the consensus?]

nom_de_plume

G6JNS wrote: »

If the testator wanted to change her will accordingly she could have done so. The will made it explicitly clear what was to happen in the case of any of the beneficiaries pre-deceasing the testator so she did anticipate the possibility that this might happen. So your theory is just wrong.

Whilst the will makes things explicitly clear the testator sadly is no longer here to confirm that is indeed their real wishes.

I add one more vote for distributing the will, with the agreement of all parties, such that each of the 3 families receive an equal share. If any of the children are under 18, this could be achieved by giving the children 1/7th share per family (as per the will) and divide the remaining 4/7th 3 ways.

Whilst the law is black and white the real world is many shades of grey....

JimmyTheWig

nom_de_plume wrote: »

Whilst the will makes things explicitly clear the testator sadly is no longer here to confirm that is indeed their real wishes.

I add one more vote for distributing the will, with the agreement of all parties, such that each of the 3 families receive an equal share.

I agree that she is no longer here to confirm her wishes, but it is clear from the will that she expected family A to receive more than family C. I don't see that Brother B dying has any bearing on this.

getmore4less

The will takes account of deaths in 2 places,

The residual distribution.
The children as family groups.

I would conclude that is what the testator wanted.

They did not seem to include/anticipate further issue of the siblings but that is no longer a potential problem.

nom_de_plume

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I agree that she is no longer here to confirm her wishes, but it is clear from the will that she expected family A to receive more than family C. I don't see that Brother B dying has any bearing on this.

You are indeed correct - skim reading fail on my part. Maybe her intentions were purely for all living parties to receive an equal share (based upon the family C legacy) and the will wording does precisely indicate her wishes.

G6JNS

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I agree that she is no longer here to confirm her wishes, but it is clear from the will that she expected family A to receive more than family C. I don't see that Brother B dying has any bearing on this.

Why should her wishes need confirming? The will is quite clear as to what they were. The wording of the will strongly suggests that it was drawn up by a solicitor rather than being a bodged DIY one. The question of how much each family should get is irrelevant. The testator made the choice and would have had the consequences explained by her solicitor. Why should anyone else now decide that her clear, and express, wishes should be changed? It seems to be simply omphaloskepsis rather than trying to help the OP.

JimmyTheWig

G6JNS wrote: »

Why should her wishes need confirming? The will is quite clear as to what they were.

That wasn't the case when the thread started.
Nor was it the case to everyone who read that legal-speak.
But I believe that by now that the consensus is that the will is clear and there should be no problems.

g6jns_2

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

That wasn't the case when the thread started.
Nor was it the case to everyone who read that legal-speak.
But I believe that by now that the consensus is that the will is clear and there should be no problems.

On the contrary it was quite clear from the start. Several people made what were, sadly, incorrect assertions that there was some doubt when in fact the clarification given by the OP just reinforced the original view.

Unfortunately there seem to be a significant number of people who think wills should be altered without any legal authority to do so just because they, or the family, don't agree with the testators wishes.

Mojisola

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

But I believe that by now that the consensus is that the will is clear and there should be no problems.

Unless all the beneficiaries choose to use the legal process of a deed of variation to share the money out differently.

JimmyTheWig

Mojisola wrote: »

Unless all the beneficiaries choose to use the legal process of a deed of variation to share the money out differently.

True.
I just don't see why they would choose to do that when the wording of the will appears to match the intention.