who shall attain the age of 23 years

11:10 Oct 22, 2017 

@ Charles,@ Björn

You seem to be forgetting that we are given merely 2 sentences in a much longer will. (Have you ever seen a 2-sentence will?)
For me, the shareout percentage in these 2 sentences is clear for the eligible beneficiaries. I'm not going to repeat all that again .
I also said there could be years of interim periods before all the residual estate is paid out as each eligible heir reaches the age of 23 (and it is incorrect, as BDF has pointed out, to say "survive/live longer than 23") and I also surmised that other clauses would deal with the nitty gritty of these periods and the will/trust administration until eventually, all the estate has been settled on the eligible heirs and taxes and admin fees etc. have been paid. Tina is wrong to say the will can be settled fully merely by setting up trusts. In this case, the eligibe heirs are firstly the 3 sons (equal shares), so trusts can immediately be put in place for them until individually reaching age 23, but if 1, 2 or even 3 sons die beforehand, trusts will have to be put in place (upon such death/s) for each of their surviving children). But we can assume there ARE other clauses dealing with all this

07:03 Oct 22, 2017 

Even if there is no actual dispute, obtaining probate can be expensive if wills fail to provide for every eventuality. I have personal experience of this.

I tend to see wills through the prism of Jarndyce vs Jarndyce in Dickens's novel Bleak House: finally the case is resolved, and it turns out there is nothing left to inherit: the whole vast estate has been swallowed up in legal fees.

23:23 Oct 21, 2017 

It doesn't say anything about how the portion of the estate corresponding to a deceased beneficiary with more than one child is to be shared between/among his children. If equal shares are intended, it ought to say so. If anyone chooses to contest this point, the ruling will probably be that the shares should be equal, and if the heirs have any sense they won't contest it, but as Björn says, wills often bring out the worst in people. One of the heirs might claim that the testator intended them to get a larger share. Unnecessary legal expenses may be incurred arguing the case.

More importantly, in my view, it doesn't spell out the consequences of a scenario such as the one the asker raises: if John dies before reaching the age of 23, leaving children, what happens to John's share while they're waiting to see whether his children make it to 23? You would have expected some reference to a trust of some kind, as Tina suggests. And if John's children also die before reaching 23, what happens to John's share? We must assume that it will be shared equally between Peter and Bob, or their eligible children. But in a properly drafted will all these things should be explicitly spelled out.

19:35 Oct 21, 2017 

I thought about that, but I've gotten very wary of anything that could be misinterpreted after spending so much time on American blogs. As said, I wouldn't leave anything to chance here, not least because of the reformation rule. The only thing this document tells me personally is that the parent's share is passed on to the children. It doesn't say anything about how it will be divided among them. It may not matter that much in this case:
"When construing a will, the testator’s intent is to be gleaned from a sympathetic reading of the instrument in its entirety and not from a single word or phrase. ii It is of paramount importance that the testator’s actual purpose be determined and effectuated to the extent it comports with the law and public policy."
https://trustedattorneys.com/reformation-of-last-wills-chang...

But as far as I could see, other examples of wills clearly say "equal" somewhere. The Legal Will Kit example [hope you can view it] looks almost exactly like the one here, but does include "if more than one [child] in equal shares." It spells it out, so there's nothing to contest.

These kinds of things can get really ugly :-/

Best

17:46 Oct 21, 2017 

@ Björn

It DOES clearly say equal shares...so grandchildren get the share (divided among them) their father would have got IF he had survived to age 23 "such child or children should take the share to which their parent would have been entitled" so that's why I say, in my hypothetical example, that 'Sam' and 'Jeff' get one sixth each whereas 'Mary' would get one third but each of them MUST get to age 23 before they can inherit their own share

16:10 Oct 21, 2017 

[Sorry for the two typos; my fingers were faster than my brain =)]

Have a look at the "Legal Will Kit" by Enodare on GoogleBooks (p. 123, numbered "Tenth"). That is what I would've expected.

16:06 Oct 21, 2017 

I'm not big on wills; I know you'll have to think about that one day, but I usually like to avoid the topic. That said, Gallagy's explanation raised an important issue, IMO:
Nowhere does it say how much each of the grandchildren would get if they were to survive until 23.

Cf:
"If Robert Smith does not survive me for 30 days, to divide the residue of my estate into as many equal shares as there are of my children who are alive at my death, except if any child of mine has died before me and one or more of his or her children are alive at my death, then that deceased child will be considered alive for the purposes of this division and I direct my Trustee to divide that share equally among those children of that deceased child."
https://learnlsbc.ca/node/733

It says "equal" and "equally"; that's what I'm missing here. It reads: "such child or children should take the share."

Unless "codified" somewhere, couldn't you argue that the exact share would be up to the surviving children? Say, Sam from Gallagy's example turns 23, but his brother is 17.

I thought "per stirpes" would've been shorter:
https://www.thebalance.com/per-stirpes-definition-in-wills-3...

Best