Suppose he willed his car to his living son, his house to his son, and the remainder of his estate to Bob.
He dies. Son is alive. In this case, son gets house and car. Bob gets everything else.
Suppose son dies first. In this case, the house transfers to the son’s estate, where it is then transferred to son’s heirs. The house was bequeathed to the “son”.
But the car does not transfer to the son’s estate. The car was bequeathed to the “living son”. The car transfers to Bob with the rest of Dad’s estate, not to the son’s heirs.
The trouble is that legal documents are often very specifically worded to avoid implications. Legal writing is almost like a different dialect to usual colloquial English.
I’ve reread it and don’t see where it says anything about siblings, alive or dead?
“Written will says most of it is to go to his living son”
Try to read first, it’s right there in the post.
uj/ The son in question is anon
Yes, but there wouldn’t be a reason to say living son unless there was a deceased sibling. The wording implies one or more deaths.
Legal documents tend to just specify things like that as a matter of course. Boilerplate is easier to adapt than starting from scratch every time.
Suppose he willed his car to his living son, his house to his son, and the remainder of his estate to Bob.
He dies. Son is alive. In this case, son gets house and car. Bob gets everything else.
Suppose son dies first. In this case, the house transfers to the son’s estate, where it is then transferred to son’s heirs. The house was bequeathed to the “son”.
But the car does not transfer to the son’s estate. The car was bequeathed to the “living son”. The car transfers to Bob with the rest of Dad’s estate, not to the son’s heirs.
Dude, its made up by some 4chan’er trolling for lol’s, it’s not a legeal document :)
The trouble is that legal documents are often very specifically worded to avoid implications. Legal writing is almost like a different dialect to usual colloquial English.