What does this mean? - Predeceased child of testator

jewellery10

Reading the will I think that the solicitor who drafted the will DID know that a child had predeceased the testator, and was ensuring that the children of the deceased child would inherit their share. The wording is written this way to be a 'standard' conditional clause IF any child had issue. If E or V had also predeceased the testator (without issue), their share would be re-distributed equally between the surviving named child and the issue of the other child who had predeceased her.

jewellery10

Conversely if E or V had predeceased the testator WITH issue, they would inherit their parent's share, along with the other child's issue.

sheramber

Wills are dealt with. Y what is written in them .

Not what somebody thinks the solicitor  meant. 

It sounds as if you do not agree with how the executor is  interpreting the would .

jewellery10

The solicitors acting on behalf of the Executor have interpreted the will incorrectly, and have dispersed the assets recently to E & V only. The will is valid, but the actions of the solicitors are not. A formal complaint has been submitted to the solicitors highlighting their alleged negligence. Waiting for a reply.

silvercar

Now that events have passed we could try to rewrite in a simpler form, calling your late husband H,

"to hold the residue thereof (hereinafter called "my Residuary Estate") UPON TRUST for such of my son E and my daughter V  as shall survive me and if more than one in equal shares absolutely PROVIDED THAT if any child of mine dies before me or before attaining a vested interest leaving issue who survive me then such issue shall on reaching the age of 18 years take equally the share which his her or their parent would otherwise have taken."

becomes:

“to hold the residue thereof UPON TRUST for my son E and my daughter V in equal shares absolutely PROVIDED THAT  H ‘s issue shall take equal shares of what H would have taken. “

So it hinges on whether ‘absolutely’ or ‘provided that’ take precedent, given that they appear to contradict each other. But I’m not a lawyer.