How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Joshua Your Own Question
Joshua, Lawyer
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 27068
Experience:  LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice
Type Your Family Law Question Here...
Joshua is online now

A UK Will stating the 3 daughters are beneficiaries, and

This answer was rated:

Good Morning,
A UK Will stating the 3 daughters are beneficiaries, and also has a 28 day survivorship clause
One of the daughters dies within 28 days of testatorDoes her part of estate go to her children, OR would the estate be inherited by remaining 2 daughters ONLY.Thank you

Hello and thank you for your question. I will be very pleased to assist you. I'm a practising lawyer in England with over 10 years experience.

May I trouble you for the exact wording of the will clause - what happens very much depends upon the exact wording as there are various common permutations. Obviously please substitute any names for letters i.e. A, B and C and no need to include any addresses if the will includes them

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
Any Person who does not survive me by twenty-eight days who would otherwise be a beneficiary under my Will shall be treated for the purposes of my Will as having died in my lifetime.

Thank you. It was the clause actually gifting the money to the daughters I was after - apologies for the confusion. ie. the clause that says I give my daughters £x each or x% each etc. Are you able to kindly give me the exact wording of that gift clause(s)?

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
b. Upon Trust to distribute my Residuary Estate in the following shares:1/3 to my daughter ‘A’ provided that if my said son ‘A’ shall die without having attained a vested interest leaving a child or children who shall attain the age of majority such child or children shall take by substitution and in equal shares if more than one the share or interest shall in my residuary estate which such named beneficiary of mine would have taken had be survived me and attained a vested interest under this my Will.
1/3 to my daughter ‘B’…………………… AS ABOVE1/3 to my daughter ‘C’……………….. AS ABOVEIf any of the share or shares under this sub clause (b) shall fail in their entirety that share or these shares shall be added proportionally to the other shares that have not failed (and this provision shall apply to both any their powers so as to conflict with the beneficial provisions of this my Will.

Many thanks for the above. That is everything I need. However I have noted what is either a mistake in the will or what may just be a typo (below - emphasis added):

1/3 to my daughter ‘A’ provided that if my said son ...

Is that ("son") what is says in the will or does it say "daughter". Presumably it should say daughter?

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
sorry my typo, should state daughter

That's fine. I'd much rather it a typo than a mistake in the will which may have created a problem.

Based on the above, if we take A for instance (what follows applies in the same way to A B or C) if A dies either before the Testator (the person who made the will) or within 28 days of the Testator, then A's share will pass to any natural or adopted child she leaves behind and if she had more than one child, in equal shares between them.

If any of A's children is under the age of 18 then their share must be held in trust (i.e. on their behalf) by the executor until they reach such 18. If any child dies before they reach the age of 18 their share will pass to any other of A's children equally or failing that will accrue to B & C's shares.

Does the above answer all your questions? If it does, I should be very grateful if you would kindly take a moment to click a rating for my service to you today. Your feedback is important to me. If there is anything else I can help with please reply back to me though

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
thank you, ***** ***** the children (who are all over 18) would only inherit mothers share if she had survived more than 30 days.
I cannot see the benefit of the survivorship clause in this Will, because the children would have inherited even if it was not in there. Please can you explain for me. Thanks

Yes of course. Survivorship clauses are often included in wills to avoid unintended consequences where someone who dies in close succession to a testator. If there is no survivorship clause then what would have happened above, is that (if we may stay with the example of A for simplicity (but as above it applies equally to A, B and C - I apologise for being so impersonable if this is a real situation involving loved ones):

A would have inherited money despite having died very soon after Testator (T). That would mean that T's will would no longer control those funds. Instead those funds would be part of A's estate and A may or may not have left a will leaving those funds to anybody - e.g. she could have left it to charity, to a partner and so on. If no will was made then the funds would fall under the intestacy rules - so a spouse would benefit and possibly children depending upon the size of her estate.

I appreciate from what you say that in this particular case A's children may well have inherited anyway regardless of the survivorship clause. But you can see from the above that that needn't necessarily be so - for example if A was married, if A had made a will disinheriting her children or leaving funds to others as well as her children and so on.

The benefit of a survivorship clause is it gives T the benefit of control of the desitination of a gift rather than relying on chance as one never knows for certain what circumstances will be in the future when making a will. The effect of the survivorship clause here means that the gift to A fails and the substitutional provisions that follow in the clause apply - i.e. goes to the children instead.

I hope the above makes sense. Please come back to me if not. Does the above answer all your questions or is there anything I can clarify or help you with any further?

Joshua and other Family Law Specialists are ready to help you