Need a bit of help with understanding different wording

[Deleted User]

Hi, I've just applied for probate, and now looking at the list of legacies (wording below) and I have 2 questions for which I'd appreciate help.
(1) is there any difference between the way (a) and (e) need to be treated, given the different wording but same recipients ?
(2) as there is not enough money to go around, do I just give (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 90% of what they were due, OR do (a)(b)(c)(d) get the full amount and then (e) is what's left split between them. Just not sure why (a) did not have the figure of £20K in the first place, rather than £10K in two different sections of the will.
I GIVE the following pecuniary legacies free of all inheritance tax
(a) £10K to (son) John and (daughter) Elizabeth
(b) £10K to those of my grandchildren lving at the date of my death and if more than one in equal shares
(c) £1K to Charity 1
(d)£1K to Charity 2
I GIVE all the remainder of my estate to such of my children as shall survive me, and if more than one in equal shares and I declare that
(e) The gift of £10K to each of them (son) John and (daughter) Elizabeth is additional to their respective shares of my residuary estate

Thanks for any guidance on this. If I've not made it clear enough, please let me know.

nom_de_plume

a, b, c and d get paid first, in full if funds are sufficient or reduced by equal percentages if not, and then any left over goes to the children IN ADDITION to the £10k each.

-taff

A] says they get 10k each first from the estate.

E] says any children remaining get the estate divided equally between them.
Ni idea what hapens when there isn't nough in the estate to satisfy the amounts mentioned in A to D but someone will be along...

nom_de_plume

Just to expand, you seem to be confusing a and e as John and Elizabeth getting £20k each. That's incorrect. They only get £10k each PLUS anything left over after b, c and d have been paid (assuming there's more than £32k in the estate)

Sea_Shell

You could also read that as (a) being £10k to John and Elizabeth (therefore only £5k each)

Although this is then clarified in (e), but (a) isn't very well written, to my eyes anyway.

Mojisola

Dilbert999 wrote: »

I GIVE the following pecuniary legacies free of all inheritance tax
(a) £10K to (son) John and (daughter) Elizabeth
(b) £10K to those of my grandchildren lving at the date of my death and if more than one in equal shares
(c) £1K to Charity 1
(d)£1K to Charity 2

I GIVE all the remainder of my estate to such of my children as shall survive me, and if more than one in equal shares and I declare that
(e) The gift of £10K to each of them (son) John and (daughter) Elizabeth is additional to their respective shares of my residuary estate

(e) makes John and Elizabeth the residuary beneficiaries.

(a) makes sure that they get at least £10k each in case there isn't anything left after the other beneficiaries receive their inheritance.

If clause (a) wasn't there and there wasn't anything left after the grandchildren and charities had received their money, John and Elizabeth could have been left with nothing.

getmore4less

Read up the rules on abatement.

[Deleted User]

Thank you for all your replies. Much appreciated.
I found a really useful page on gov.uk/hmrc about abatement. I'm not permitted to post the link but easy enough to find.

unholyangel

Sea_Shell wrote: »

You could also read that as (a) being £10k to John and Elizabeth (therefore only £5k each)

Although this is then clarified in (e), but (a) isn't very well written, to my eyes anyway.

If it meant £10k split, it would say in equal shares like b and e

AnotherJoe

Looks to me very poorly written, (e) appears to be just clarification that john and liz get 10k first plus an additional % share of whats left, but its muddying the waters unnecessarily (and confused you) the will would work as was presumably intended without it. Would at least have been better with the "(e)" preceeding it omitted.

getmore4less

It will be a standerd clause with knon legal meaning.