Campaign for plain English in Wills!?

Swiss_Danny67

Im pretty used to reading commercial contracts but this trust language is horrible...here's an extract from fathers will.
Sister is concerned her child only inherits if she is 25 on fathers death.
I think it says residuary estate to be divided between son, daugther, grandchild (but only receiving the inheritance at 25, held in trust until then) and two charities (2x 1/2 shares). If any of the named beneficiaries pre-decease, it looks down to their offspring if any (on reaching 25 also - but this is currently not an issue).
Do you agree?  Thanks. 

1.         MY TRUSTEES shall hold my residuary estate on trust to divide it into TWO HUNDRED (200) equal shares and to hold those shares on the following trusts absolutely:

1.1.             as to ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) SHARES for such of [Son] my [Daughter] and my [only Grandchild] as survive me and in the case of [only Grandchild] on attaining the age of twenty five years (and if more than on in equal shares) but if either of [Son] [Daughter] dies before me or [only Grandchild] dies before me before attaining the age of twenty five years leaving a child or children alive at or born after my own death who reach the age of 25 years then such child or children shall take absolutely (and if more than one in equal shares) the share of my residuary estate which such of [Son] [Daughter] would have taken had had he or she survived me or [only Grandchild] if she had attained a vested interest

1.2.             as to TWENTY FIVE (25) SHARES for [Registered Charity A – Saved only Grandchild's life]

1.3.             as to TWENTY FIVE (25) SHARES for [Registered Charity B – Saved Father’s life]

cr1mson

No I would read that as that if the Grandchild is not 25 then it will be held in trust for them. Usually designed to ensure that money actually goes to child and/or is not spent by child at an early age possibly on something inappropriate.

Not sure what the position is in England but in Scotland I know that although husband and I both wrote our wills to say our kids wouldn't inherit until they were 21 but be held in trust for them but relatively easy for them to challenge this if they had reached 16.

I have vague memories that same in England but age is 18.

Swiss_Danny67

cr1mson said:

No I would read that as that if the Grandchild is not 25 then it will be held in trust for them. Usually designed to ensure that money actually goes to child and/or is not spent by child at an early age possibly on something inappropriate.

Not sure what the position is in England but in Scotland I know that although husband and I both wrote our wills to say our kids wouldn't inherit until they were 21 but be held in trust for them but relatively easy for them to challenge this if they had reached 16.

I have vague memories that same in England but age is 18.

Thanks, that is my reading too and I do believe the intent that was explained to me. The will is quite recent 2019 so should hopefully be drafted in a legally effective way. It might be moot as GC is only 18 months from that age and a pretty responsible person. The will needs an update following mothers recent death anyway.

GrumpyDil

The problem is that the language used in wills has developed over many years so whilst it would be possible to try and make it less legalese there is a chance the some wording could end up being argued about anyway. 

Oh and yes your interpretation is how I would interpret that will. 

tacpot12

Perhaps all Wills should come with a 'plain English' explanation of what the Will says. If this was prepared by the solicitor that drafted the Will there should be no problems. 

boingy

tacpot12 said:

Perhaps all Wills should come with a 'plain English' explanation of what the Will says. 

Ours did, and it was most helpful. But there is definitely scope to make the wording of the actual will clearer. My favourite archaic term in ours is "per stirpes". 

Sea_Shell

I've often wondered, when seeing very wordy wills posted about here, what the least wordy will could be that would be valid and legally binding?


As for the OP, i've never seen this "200" shares used, but it does seem like a fairly good idea if you want to break up the estate into smaller fractions than that which 100 shares (%) gives.   

Saves using decimal points I suppose.   Are you not supposed to use decimal points, as they can be easily misread or misinterpreted?

Keep_pedalling

boingy said:

tacpot12 said:

Perhaps all Wills should come with a 'plain English' explanation of what the Will says. 

Ours did, and it was most helpful. But there is definitely scope to make the wording of the actual will clearer. My favourite archaic term in ours is "per stirpes". 

That at least does have a specific legal meaning, I hate the use of obsolete terms like executrix to denote the executor happens to be a woman. I also don’t know why so many wills put unenforceable age limits on absolute gifts to children. 

Linton

The qreat advantage of standard legal terminology is that it has a precise meaning which is likely to have been tested in the courts many times over the years.  If earch will had to explain "per stirpes" etc in simple english there is a good chance than some wills will be incomplete or wrong.  Also wills would be much longer.

boingy

Linton said:

The qreat advantage of standard legal terminology is that it has a precise meaning which is likely to have been tested in the courts many times over the years.  If earch will had to explain "per stirpes" etc in simple english there is a good chance than some wills will be incomplete or wrong.  Also wills would be much longer.

They don't do it for anything as worthwhile as having a precise legal meaning. They do it to justify their existence. If we could all read and understand wills they'd be out of a job.
Latin should be banned from legal documents.

Savvy_Sue

Sea_Shell said:

I've often wondered, when seeing very wordy wills posted about here, what the least wordy will could be that would be valid and legally binding?

"Everything to Mother", I believe.

Sadly I can't find a reference. And although it was both valid and legally binding, there was a dispute as to whether the deceased was identifying his mother, or his wife and mother of his children who was always referred to as "Mother".