Having reached the above conclusion in respect of the interpretation of issue the Bailiff then turned his attention as to whether the division of the estate should be par souche or par tête.

It is clear that if an heir had predeceased, his or her children would be able to claim légitime in place of their deceased parent, therefore issue must be of all degrees.įor these reasons the Bailiff concluded that 'issue' referred to the direct descendants of the testator through all degrees. The Bailiff also considered the provisions of Article 7(2) of the Wills and Successions (Jersey) Law 1993 and decided that in that Article issue clearly meant issue of all degrees. He found it would be hard to credit that it was the testator's intention that his collateral relatives would inherit ahead of his lineal descendants. For example, if 'issue' were to mean child, then if C and A had both predeceased their mother the residuary estate would pass to the remoter family members under the longstop provisions notwithstanding that C had children of her own. The Bailiff went on to consider the effect if the word 'child' and 'issue' were analogous in respect of various provisions in the Will. There were numerous references to 'child' or 'children' in the Will and therefore it was reasonable to conclude that the use of the word 'issue' denoted a different context (or child would have been used). The Bailiff reviewed the use of the word 'issue' in the Will and also looked at usage in Jersey. It was clear in English law that a bequest to issue was, prima facie, to descendants of all degrees, unless the context and the surrounding circumstances were such that issue meant to mean children. In the context of the Wills, did it mean the children or wider descendants? If it did mean the latter, should the distribution be made par souche (per stirpes) or par tête (per capita)? Interpretation of 'issue'Īs there was no Jersey authority on this subject the Bailiff looked to English law to see if it provided a solution. The uncertainty arose because of the use of the word 'issue' in respect of the residuary bequests. Her application was to establish how the residuary estate should devolve on her death. Mrs Le Cras was accordingly the sole life tenant of both Wills, being the only child of the testator. There were also longstop provisions in favour of remoter family members.Īt the time of the application the Resch family tree was as follows ( click here to view). From the death of the widow, the income would be paid to such children of the testator as were living, in equal shares, and on their deaths the residuary estate was to be held 'in trust for the issue of such deceased child of mine'. The final third was placed in trust the income of which was split, half being paid to his widow and half to his child or children.

The Wills had followed the Jersey légitime principles by providing outright gifts of one third of the estate to the testator's widow and one third to his child or children. The residuary provisions were more or less identical but required a ruling from the Court as to the definition of issue and in particular who would inherit following the death of Mrs Le Cras. The testator (Arnold Resch) died on 20th February 1942 having made two Wills (one dealing with his personal estate and the other his real estate outside Jersey). The Bailiff (sitting alone) was recently asked to consider an application from Mrs Le Cras for a ruling from the Court as to the interpretation of her late Father's two Wills.

In the matter of the representations of Vera Caroline Le Cras and in the matter of the estate of Arnold Gottfried Resch (deceased)

Remoter definition