This is an unpublished will construction case. To read In Re Estate of Eugenie Dietrich, click on the name.
In other posts (see for instance Who Gets the Grow Lamps?) we’ve seen the problems that arise when attorneys fail to use the precise legal terms of art. In this case, we see the problems that arise when lawyers toss in archaic legal language.
The will says: “To Peter Dietrich and Johann Dietrich, my sons, to be divided between them in equal shares, share and share alike.”
Turns out Johann predeceased Eugenie. So Peter says: “it’s all mine.” Johann’s issue took exception. The trial court agreed with Johann’s children, and ordered that they would take their deceased father’s share. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Michigan law strongly favors construction of estate planning instruments that vests the interests of predeceasing family members in their descendants. That’s what our “anti-lapse” rules are for. See MCL 700.2603. Those anti-lapse rules however can be rebutted with sufficient evidence of a contrary intent. This case offers a discussion of class gifts versus individual gifts and the rules of construction that apply, with specific focus on the meaning of the term “share and share alike.” A good read perhaps for younger lawyers developing their drafting style.
As for the phrase “share and share alike,” I think the lesson is: don’t use it. I’ve seen it many times but have never understood why it would be used when there are better ways of expressing a client’s intentions regarding what is to be done with property if a devisee predeceases.
Perhaps the attraction is that it sounds so fine – so high minded – “share and share alike.” Almost like a blessing- “go forth and prosper,” “live and let live,” “do unto others.” It has that kind of musical or poetic quality. But our goal in drafting estate planning documents is not to be poetic, rather to be clear.