Lapse of a share of residue given to named beneficiaries in equal shares
Thomas, who was unmarried and had no children, made a valid will leaving his residuary estate 'to my friends Olumide Adeyemi and Ravi Kapoor in equal shares'. The will contains no substitutional gift or survivorship clause. Ravi died in 2025 leaving two children. Thomas died in 2026, domiciled in England, survived by Olumide and by his own sister, Bronwen. Thomas's parents had both died before him.
Which of the following best describes who is entitled to Thomas's residuary estate?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: Olumide takes half; the other half passes on a partial intestacy to Bronwen.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A share of residue given to a named beneficiary as tenant in common lapses if they predecease the testator and, absent a s.33 exception, passes on partial intestacy.
Lapse of a share of residue given to named beneficiaries in equal shares
A gift lapses if the beneficiary dies before the testator. The words 'in equal shares' are words of severance, so Olumide and Ravi each took a separate half share as tenants in common, not jointly; there is therefore no right of survivorship between them. Ravi's half lapsed on his death in Thomas's lifetime. HMRC's manual states that where a gift of residue lapses, 'the property devolves as it would on intestacy'. The statutory exception in s.33 Wills Act 1837 applies only to gifts to the testator's own children or remoter descendants, and Ravi was a friend. Thomas therefore dies partially intestate as to that half (s.49 Administration of Estates Act 1925). He left no spouse, issue or parent, so under s.46(1)(v) it passes to his sister Bronwen, as a sibling of the whole blood.
Why B is wrong: Survivorship applies to a joint gift; 'in equal shares' creates separate shares, so Ravi's share lapses rather than accruing to Olumide.
Why C is wrong: Section 33 Wills Act 1837 saves gifts only to the testator's own children or remoter issue; Ravi was not Thomas's descendant.
Why D is wrong: A lapsed gift never vests in the dead beneficiary, so nothing passes into Ravi's estate.
Why E is wrong: Bona vacantia arises only if no relative entitled on intestacy survives; Bronwen takes the lapsed share.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Gift to a child who dies before the testator leaving issue (Wills Act 1837 s.33)
Which of the following best describes who is entitled to the £40,000 legacy?
Ademption of a specific gift of shares sold before death
Which of the following best describes Inés's entitlement?
Order of application of assets to debts and abatement of pecuniary legacies (AEA 1925 Sch.1 Pt II)
Which of the following best describes how the estate will be distributed?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.