Even though I was the executor, I hired a lawyer to make sure everything was distributed fairly among all of us. The last thing I wanted was for one of my siblings to think I let them out of everything that was happening to them. At the end of the trust, the trustee distributes the trustee estate equally to the surviving grandchildren of William Lewis Moody, III, and to the surviving descendants of his deceased grandchildren. Some children wanted to keep their share of the land, others wanted to sell it. It could have easily separated the family if they hadn`t chosen to get along. In summary, the key here is to understand that a share and a share of the same will with a pro-stirpes clause is the most effective way to minimize the likelihood of conflict between heirs, since everyone receives an equal share. Keep in mind, however, that such an arrangement works best if you allocate liquid assets or stocks and bonds. When it comes to real estate or other types of tangible property (such as vehicles or jewellery), sharing and dividing can be just as cumbersome. The term “equal parts by brewing” is a common term in estate planning documents, but it is full of ambiguity. The recent case of Archer v.

Moody, 544 p.w.3d 413 (Tex. Ct. App. 2017) illustrates the problem of sentencing. In addition, Isaac may have designated a “conditional beneficiary.” A conditional beneficiary comes second; If the principal heir dies or is unable to maintain the inheritance, it reverts to the prospective beneficiary. To continue the example, let`s say Isaac names Natalie, Alan and Ted as his heirs and adds Emma as a potential beneficiary. In this case, Alan`s 10,000 shares in XYZ Inc. would go to Emma. Even if you intend for your estate to be distributed jointly and equally, this is not always very easy. It turns out that Johann died before Eugenie.

Then Peter said, “It`s all mine.” Johann`s problem took an exception. The Court of First Instance ruled in favour of Johann`s children and ordered them to take back their deceased father`s share. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative. He owned a lot of farmland and when he died, each child received his share of it. One of the brothers was already cultivating the land, and it became a problem for everyone involved. I was appointed executor of my parents` estate upon the death of my parents. We all knew that they intended to distribute their estate in a divided and equal way. The obvious problem with the wording is that the phrase “in equal proportions with respect to the grandchildren living at the time” could mean equal shares for the grandchildren or conventional shares per stirpes, but not both. The phrase “equal proportions” should never be added to the phrase “per stirpes”, as each sentence could be interpreted as going in the opposite direction of the other sentence. When my grandfather remarried later in life after the death of his first wife, they kept their property separate. He wanted to make sure that all his fortune after his death also went to his 6 children. RELEASE.

Part of everything. Sometimes the proportions are the same, sometimes they are uneven. 2. In companies and corporations, the total share capital is usually divided into equal shares, called shares. Public company shares were sometimes held as real estate, but more often than not, they are considered personal property. Wortew. Yes. Sto. Co.

Ch. 1 P., p. 288. 3. The part that falls upon one of the many children of his ancestor is called the share. The term share and equal share means in equal proportions. See Perpart. Better wording can guarantee the fulfillment of the testator`s wishes. If the testator wants traditional words, the phrase “my children in equal shares with the right of representation” has no ambiguity as to the testator`s intent. It hasn`t been decided by the court yet, but the identical action and action clause is the only way my father didn`t know to get half of the estate he did all his life! So ask your estate planners what happens if your heirs die before you, because anti-forfeiture laws are crap! If a gift is intended in a will to be “divided and divided” to a group of two or more beneficiaries, the gift is divided into as many equal shares as there are some beneficiaries who live longer than the testator.

Each surviving beneficiary in the group receives a share.1 If not all beneficiaries in the group survive, the gift passes to some potential beneficiaries, if any, or with the rest of the estate. In other articles (see, for example, Who Gets the Grow Lamps?), we have seen the problems that arise when lawyers do not use the exact legal terms of art. In this case, we see the problems that arise when lawyers launch archaic legal language. “Per stirpes” (pronounced “per stree-pez”) means “on the branches”. Under normal circumstances, unless otherwise stated, a testator`s property would go to future generations, such as siblings and children. In a pro-stripes situation, all genetic descendants of the testator are taken into account (spouses are not). If one of the beneficiaries dies before the testator`s property has been distributed, the natural or legal (adopted) child of that beneficiary may replace him. Alternatively, a testator may stipulate that all his descendants receive a portion of the estate. If the person making a will wants two or more people to have equal shares in an asset or in the estate as a whole, they can use the term “divide and divide equally.” For example, a will could leave a bank account for “my three daughters, share and share equally.” This means that each of the girls receives a third of the money in the account. If a daughter dies before the person who made the will, in most jurisdictions, the remaining two daughters share the money. One is now 19 and the other 7 (meaning the baby`s mother gets the 7-year-old`s share).

My father never met the children, and he would never have wanted them to have half of his estate against his only son of blood! I imagine that lawyers who deal with wills and trust documents have some very interesting stories to tell about what happens to families when it comes to distributing assets. Michigan law strongly favors the construction of estate planning instruments that transfer the interests of family members to their descendants. That`s what our “anti-forfeiture” rules are for. See MCL 700.2603. However, these anti-lapse rules can be refuted with sufficient evidence to the contrary. This case deals with collective versus individual gifts and the applicable rules of interpretation, with particular emphasis on the meaning of the phrase “divide and share equitably”. A good read, perhaps, for young lawyers developing their design style. The lower court ruled that this meant the equality of all grandchildren, which meant that everyone received the same share. Perhaps the appeal lies in the fact that it sounds so good – so noble in spirit – “share and share fairly”. Almost like a blessing: “Will prosper”, “live and let live”, “do to others”. He has that kind of musical or poetic quality. But our goal in creating estate planning documents is not to be poetic, but to be clear.

As an example, suppose that in the example above, Alan has two children, Alan Junior and Alicia. Since Alan Sr. is deceased or missing, his children would each receive 5,000 shares of XYZ Inc. In a scenario where Alan Senior survives and Isaac decides on a division of the estate, Alan`s three siblings and children would each receive 6,000 shares. In a final will, the legal expression “divide and divide equally” refers to any part of an estate bequeathed to two or more persons. For example, Isaac owns 30,000 shares of XYZ, Inc. When he issues his will, he stipulates that the shares must be divided between his heirs Natalie, Alan and Ted. Normally, each of them would receive 10,000 shares. Share and Share alike is a legal term that refers to the equal distribution of assets and other benefits of an estate.