I think it's more an annoying grammatical thing, like saying "between you and I," than it is any kind of ambiguity.I am by no means an expert.
But, my understanding is that "per stirpes" means by branch.
I don't see how identifying how each beneficiary to be either by branch or not would be incorrect usage. I take it to mean if one of the beneficiaries is selected to be per stirpes, then their share would go to their descendants if they predeaceased. If a different beneficiary did not have the box checked, then their share would not go to their descendants if they predeceased, but would instead be spread amongst the other primary beneficiaries.
The full phrase is something like: I leave 50% of my IRA to John Smith, or if he should predecease me, then split that 50% of the IRA among his descendants, per stirpes.
Leaving 50% to "John Smith per stirpes" is like saying: "Split 50% of my IRA among John Smith" which doesn't make any sense. It's too aggressive an abbreviation, as it's missing the fact it's left to his descendants per stirpes. Per capita and per stirpes don't make any sense if the beneficiary is still alive since there is nothing to split; it's a tautology and would both give the same result.
Statistics: Posted by Makefile — Tue Jun 18, 2024 10:58 pm — Replies 44 — Views 1561