What does this mean? - Predeceased child of testator

jewellery10

If the conditional clause is standard why change it. It EXPLICITLY states "ANY child of mine" no ambiguity IMHO. The testators intentions were clear - divide the estate equally between all of her children, or their issue if any predeceased her. 

poseidon1

Since you have pointed out that the estate has already been distributed to E and V , and you have a pending complaint with the solicitor that actioned the distribution, seems a bit pointless arguing the merits of your position here, especially since the consensus on this forum is either accidentally or deliberately your children were disinherited.

I assume the administration of the deceased estate did not occur over a very short time period so there must have  been more than ample opportunity for E & V to recognise the injustice visited on your children and voluntarily vary their largesse in your children's favour, without your prompting.

The fact that neither of them has apparently chosen  to do so suggests ( to me ) some kind of material family rift, or at the very least no natural sense of closeness between them and your children.

Ultimately, it is doubtful your complaint to the solicitor will provide you any satisfaction ( they are hardly going to admit negligence) , so the question is what legal steps are you prepared to take to recoup what you believe your children are entitled to?

doodling

Hi,

jewellery10 said:

If the conditional clause is standard why change it. It EXPLICITLY states "ANY child of mine" no ambiguity IMHO. The testators intentions were clear - divide the estate equally between all of her children, or their issue if any predeceased her. 

No.  If any child is pre-decased then their issue get their share - I agree with that.  But, your husband's share was nothing as he isn't mentioned in that clause so your children get that share of nothing.

As I said before, either the will was revised by an idiot after your husband's death (that clause wouldnt have needed revising at all if it listed all three offspring) or there was deliberate intent to disinherit your children.

Either way, from what we have seen it looks like your issue is with the will itself rather than the executors. 

silvercar

doodling said:

Hi,

jewellery10 said:

If the conditional clause is standard why change it. It EXPLICITLY states "ANY child of mine" no ambiguity IMHO. The testators intentions were clear - divide the estate equally between all of her children, or their issue if any predeceased her. 

No.  If any child is pre-decased then their issue get their share - I agree with that.  But, your husband's share was nothing as he isn't mentioned in that clause so your children get that share of nothing.

As I said before, either the will was revised by an idiot after your husband's death (that clause wouldnt have needed revising at all if it listed all three offspring) or there was deliberate intent to disinherit your children.

Either way, from what we have seen it looks like your issue is with the will itself rather than the executors. 

Could be anything, could be E and V telling their mother not to worry, to leave everything to them and they would see the grandkids were OK. We’ll never know.