If a child only has to survive the first spouse, then, as fellow forum members have said, that child will have a vested interest once the first parent dies. Consequently the gift the child receives on the death of the second spouse passes instead into their estate, and then onward according to their will/intestacy.
Old FLIT arrangements allowed one to consider whether this was ‘what the parents would have wanted’ and if not, use the overriding powers to correct matters (e.g.by diverting the gift away from the deceased child’s estate and passing it to their children so that the ‘wicked son-in-law’ did not receive it). Now of course the wish to secure the RNRB prevents a testator from including overriding powers which overhang the second death. No tidying up allowed!
I now tend to insert wording that requires the children to survive the second spouse to die in order to avoid the parents gifts going off on a ‘dog leg’ to a son- or daughter-in-law. My Wills favour the grandchildren in default of the couple’s own child surviving, which is what most folk want. The correct destination of the gift is seen as more important than the knowledge that if wicked son-in-law receives it, he will benefit from the RNRB. (Adding insult to perjury, as one of my friends says.)
Jill MacMahon
Thackray Williams LLP