Also known as: anti-lapse statute · antilapse statutes · antilapse statute · anti-lapse laws
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statutory rule of construction that substitutes the surviving descendants of a predeceased relative beneficiary for that beneficiary in a will devise. The statute operates only when the predeceased beneficiary falls within the protected class of relatives and leaves descendants who survive the testator. The rule yields to an express contrary intention in the will.
Adam Anderson executed a will leaving his vacation cabin to his brother Aaron Adams. Aaron died two years before Adam, survived by his daughter Amelia Amari. At Adam's death Amelia claims the cabin under the antilapse statute. The statute treats Aaron as a protected relative who left a surviving descendant, so Amelia receives the cabin in Aaron's place rather than allowing the gift to pass under the residuary clause.
Alfred Ashford left his farm equipment to the children of his two sisters. One nephew died shortly before Alfred, survived by two children. The surviving niece and the nephew's two children each claim shares. The antilapse statute treats the deceased nephew as a class member who left surviving descendants, so his children take his share by representation while the niece takes her own share directly.
John N. Swanson executed his will on March 1, 1990. The residuary clause bequeathed one-half of the residue property to Hazel Brennan of Guilford, Connecticut, if she survives me. Brennan was Swanson's stepdaughter. Kathleen Smaldone, Brennan's child, was also named as a residuary legatee in the will. Brennan died on January 2, 2001. Swanson died seventeen days later. The will was admitted to probate on February 9, 2001. On April 26, 2002, the Probate Court concluded that the antilapse statute was not operative and that the bequest to Brennan lapsed, passing to the intestate estate. Fred Ruotolo and Charlene Ruotolo, beneficiaries under the will, filed a motion for appeal to the Superior Court from the Probate Court decision. Smaldone filed a cross appeal. Following a de novo hearing in the Superior Court, the court affirmed the judgment of the Probate Court. Smaldone appealed the Superior Court decision to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
View caseMost statutes protect devises to grandparents and descendants of grandparents, and some also cover stepchildren. They do not protect devises to a spouse or to persons outside the specified family relationship.
Supporting sources
Modern statutes expressly apply to class gifts. A person who would have taken under the class gift had the person survived the testator is treated as a class member for purposes of creating a substitute gift to that person's surviving descendants.
Supporting sources
The statute yields to a contrary intention shown with reasonable certainty. Language that creates an express alternative devise, such as directing a lapsed gift into the residue upon the beneficiary's failure to survive, displaces the statutory substitute gift.
Supporting sources
The antilapse statute does not apply. The gift lapses and passes under the residuary clause or to the testator's heirs by intestacy.
Supporting sources
…Jr., had children bom after the testator’s death makes a violation of the mie an actual fact. : The Massachusetts antilapse statute applies only to testamentary gifts to a child or other relation of a testator who predeceased the testator leaving issue surviving the testator and to class gifts to children or other…