Wills - Leaving Stuff To X But Not X's Children

[Peter Pedant]

Hi chris
someone has asked me about his will.
he has a devisable asset ( thing, in simple speak) which he wishes to leave to A B and C in equa (thirds)l parts, and if one is dead NOT to the dead ones children or heirs but then only to A and B in equal (halves) parts. ( opposite of per stirpes)

will ( haha pun intended)
I leave X to A B and C if more than one living at the time this will takes effect then in equal parts absolutely
do the trick - or is there more looby-gooby to it?
thanks - he thanks you as well ( not it is not me)

[THECORBYLOON]

Would saying you leave X to A,B and C "per capita" not do the trick? That would mean only those alive at the time of the distribution (not any of their heirs) would receive an equal share.

[Buenchico]

"I give X to A, B and C in equal shares. Should one of the aforementioned persons not survive me for thirty days, I give X in equal shares to the two surviving persons. Should two of the aforementioned persons fail to survive me for a period of thirty days I give X in its entirety to the sole survivor. Should none of the aforementioned persons survive me for a period of thirty days, X shall form part of my residuary estate "

Typed on my phone in a pub and probably in need of tidying up but it should be clear enough!

[Peter Pedant]

thanks - both
no room for flowery language there
actually the form has a recursive structure which wont be of interest to anyone
man thx again
PP

[jno]

the records office at Kew is full of wills written in Suffolk pubs - none has ever been successfully challenged.

[Peter Pedant]

ah - the Kew library is full also of
C18 wills causes ( heard by the ecclesiatical authorities and then courts of chancery) and 80% are started by women ( gurlz as I call them) who felt they had not had their share
and the other 80% ( some overlap I agree) were over non cupative wills (oral)

the rationale of the wills act 1837 was partly that if they stopped oral wills, then they would save more than 50% court time.

and in the instant case, the testator has just survived a sepsis episode ( +ve blood cultures), and whilst sweaty clammy and plucking at his bed clothes ( subsultus tendinum)in Hospital, not even cold let alone dead, A, B D and E met to discuss how to subdivide X (yeah right D and E arent mentioned in the will)
I laughed a tinkly laugh hahahahaha which didnt go down well with X A or B. X A B or C are not my relations

[Barmaid]

"If more than one in equal shares" should do it. Altho Chris' answer deals with s 33 wills act which applies to children/issue of the deceased.

[Peter Pedant]

many thanks all
and special thanks and kisses to both Barmaid and Chris
sleep well sweet cuz (*)

and I am glad to say the would be dead man is showing all the signs of resurrection.

(*) bofe - Shakespeare was an east ender

[jno]

Shakespeare lived all over, didn't he? In Blackfriars, Bankside and Barbican as well as Shoreditch. Plus Warks.

[woofgang]

glad to hear that reports of your mate's death are greatly exaggerated