I am dealing with an estate where T’s Will states after some small cash legacies,
Net proceeds of sale of house “to be divided per stirpes as follows:-”
(a) 1/6 to A or his widow if he predeceases me. (A died before T, and A’s widow before A)
(b) to (e) 1/6 to individuals who all survived T
(f) 1/6 "equally between the following: (i) B (who predeceased T leaving no issue) (ii) (iii) and (iv) to individuals who have all survived T.
Residue is then left with exactly the same wording, but the divisions are 1/8ths, with charities benefitting in addition to the same beneficiaries as above.
I don’t recall seeing a Will worded this way before; presumably the words “Per Stirpes” in this context are intended to save any gift where the named beneficiary predeceases T by passing it down to their issue, so that A’s gift would pass to A’s issue. However, the share of B in the house would presumably fail and pass into residue, with B’s share of residue failing and passing on a partial intestacy (there are no additional saving clauses in the Will). I have not been able to find any reference to any cases where this wording is used.
Is this interpretation correct, or are there any other interpretations I am missing?
This seems rather peculiar wording and, as a first step, I suggest it would be appropriate to obtain the draftsman’s file, so that you can see the testator’s original instructions and try and deduce their intention.
No relationship between the testator and A or B is noted and, if any are descendants of T, s.33 Wills Act 1837 will apply and it might be the implications of this that the draftsman had in mind.
In the absence of any further directions within the will, I agree that B’s share would appear to devolve as suggested by Mr Denby.
However, I would apply the same outcome to the share given to A or his widow, as “per stirpes” is usually only applied to identify the manner of the division and not to identify the beneficiary class. Without a strong supporting legal opinion and the buy-in of the other beneficiaries, I would be reluctant to distribute any of A’s (lapsed) share to his issue.
I agree with previous posters that the wording is unusual and details of
the will instructions may help.
However, I would query the statements concerning A, in particular in the
original post that “his widow died before him”. Surely the lady in question
could not be A’s widow unless she survived him? Is that not what a widow is?