Grandfather predeceased Grandmother. She had a will that mirrored her husbands will, whom died in 2020.
Both wills stated that the estate would first go to the surviving spouse and then upon their death the estate would be divided between “those children as shall survive me”. There were 4 children.
This was included because grandparents were farmers with a son (generally sickly) who had lived on the farm with grandparents his entire life. This clause was meant to deal with the event of simultaneous death in a farm accident, reducing paper work, costs, and arguments as the sickly son had no children to inherit. Simultaneous death would put son's death after parents and allow the dead son to inherit his share (thankfully never happened).
By the time grandfather died, grandmother had Alzheimer's/dementia (wasn't even aware of the event).
3 years after grandfather died, youngest daughter died. Surviving siblings promised deceased sibling they would honour her by making sure her share was passed to her family as it was well known what the wills stated. The lawyer who made and held the will knew this too(small town things)
2 years later grandmother died.
Estate lawyer/solicitor also died shortly after, not having had a chance to administer the estate.
Estate is now to be equally divided between the 3 surviving children, with the children (grandchildren) of the deceased youngest daughter inheriting no share. Siblings are providing no argument to new estate administrator.
Given that grandmother could not change the will after her daughter's death, what are the chances that a judge might allow for the argument that the grandfathers will be followed instead, allowing their youngest daughter's children to inherit their deceased mother's share?
Interested to hear your thoughts on wording, intent, circumstances and moral disengagement. And whether more cases like this may occur given the transfer of wealth in an increasingly aging population.
Both wills stated that the estate would first go to the surviving spouse and then upon their death the estate would be divided between “those children as shall survive me”. There were 4 children.
This was included because grandparents were farmers with a son (generally sickly) who had lived on the farm with grandparents his entire life. This clause was meant to deal with the event of simultaneous death in a farm accident, reducing paper work, costs, and arguments as the sickly son had no children to inherit. Simultaneous death would put son's death after parents and allow the dead son to inherit his share (thankfully never happened).
By the time grandfather died, grandmother had Alzheimer's/dementia (wasn't even aware of the event).
3 years after grandfather died, youngest daughter died. Surviving siblings promised deceased sibling they would honour her by making sure her share was passed to her family as it was well known what the wills stated. The lawyer who made and held the will knew this too(small town things)
2 years later grandmother died.
Estate lawyer/solicitor also died shortly after, not having had a chance to administer the estate.
Estate is now to be equally divided between the 3 surviving children, with the children (grandchildren) of the deceased youngest daughter inheriting no share. Siblings are providing no argument to new estate administrator.
Given that grandmother could not change the will after her daughter's death, what are the chances that a judge might allow for the argument that the grandfathers will be followed instead, allowing their youngest daughter's children to inherit their deceased mother's share?
Interested to hear your thoughts on wording, intent, circumstances and moral disengagement. And whether more cases like this may occur given the transfer of wealth in an increasingly aging population.
