Rules of inheritence for deceased beneficiaries.

DirkLewis

I have a quick question: Does anyone know if the descendants (children) of a deceased beneficiary named on a will inherit that particular share? Or does it go back into the estate to be shared out between all the living beneficiaries? The deceased beneficiary is not a related family member.



I've found myself the executor of a will (UK) due to the recent passing of a family member. Hence I have been trying to contact all the named beneficiaries.



I have discovered that someone that is named as a beneficiary on the will is deceased. This person is not a direct family member (it was a friend).


So before I go to the trouble of trying to track down the descendants of said beneficiary I just want to check the rules of inheritance.

Hopefully someone that has experience of this could give me the answer. Thanks.

p00hsticks

What does the will say ? A well-drawn one ought to cover all eventualities and make clear what should happen if a named beneficiary predeceases the testator - usually either for the bequest to lapse (i.e.e go back to form part of the residual estate) or for it to instead go to another named beneficiary or to the direct descendants of the deceased beneficiary.


If there is no indication, I believe that the default situation is that the bequest lapses, UNLESS the deceased beneficary is a direct decendant of the testator (as per the Wills act Section 33)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/33


but I'm not a legal expert so don;t take what I say as gospel

Yorkshireman99

p00hsticks wrote: »

What does the will say ? A well-drawn one ought to cover all eventualities and make clear what should happen if a named beneficiary predeceases the testator - usually either for the bequest to lapse (i.e.e go back to form part of the residual estate) or for it to instead go to another named beneficiary or to the direct descendants of the deceased beneficiary.


If there is no indication, I believe that the default situation is that the bequest lapses, UNLESS the deceased beneficary is a direct decendant of the testator (as per the Wills act Section 33)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/33


but I'm not a legal expert so don;t take what I say as gospel

The exact wording of the will is crucial. You really need to take paid for legal advice since you will be personally liable if you get it wrong. You might decide not to act or to hand the whole job over to a solicitor.

nom_de_plume

DirkLewis wrote: »

The deceased beneficiary is not a related family member.

Assuming the beneficiary died BEFORE the family member AND / OR the Will does not provide an alternative for such an eventuality then the bequest lapses.



https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm12084

DirkLewis

Thanks for the replies. Regarding the particular deceased person, no there is nothing else written on the will about what should happen to their share if 'thee not be living'.


At the moment it looks like the law (assuming the death of the person did happen before the one in the will) says it lapses (i.e. - it's made void and thus divided amongst the rest of the beneficiaries).


Incidentally - Is there any law that states legal documents must be written in an archaic language that wouldn't look out of place on the Bayeux Tapestry or similar? Seriously, even the most simple statement is written in such a way as to try and purposely confuse.

Yorkshireman99

DirkLewis wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. Regarding the particular deceased person, no there is nothing else written on the will about what should happen to their share if 'thee not be living'.


At the moment it looks like the law (assuming the death of the person did happen before the one in the will) says it lapses (i.e. - it's made void and thus divided amongst the rest of the beneficiaries).


Incidentally - Is there any law that states legal documents must be written in an archaic language that wouldn't look out of place on the Bayeux Tapestry or similar? Seriously, even the most simple statement is written in such a way as to try and purposely confuse.

You still need professionally advice. Lawyers often use what seems to be archaic language because it has an exact legal meaning.

nom_de_plume

DirkLewis wrote: »

At the moment it looks like the law (assuming the death of the person did happen before the one in the will) says it lapses (i.e. - it's made void and thus divided amongst the rest of the beneficiaries).

Depending again upon the wording of the Will, it would usually fall into the residual pot.

EG If the Will states I leave 1/3rd each to X, Y and Z and Z is the deceased beneficiary you describe in your OP, then it does not automatically follw that X and Y now receive 1/2 each.



Is there a paragraph that effectively says the remainder is to be shared between A and B or such like?

getmore4less

nom_de_plume wrote: »

Depending again upon the wording of the Will, it would usually fall into the residual pot.

EG If the Will states I leave 1/3rd each to X, Y and Z and Z is the deceased beneficiary you describe in your OP, then it does not automatically follw that X and Y now receive 1/2 each.

Is there a paragraph that effectively says the remainder is to be shared between A and B or such like?

It may not be explicit or obvious.

Wording can create an implied group/class of beneficiary.