Also known as: lapsing gifts · lapse gift · lapsed gift · lapse · anti-lapse
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A testamentary gift that fails because the intended beneficiary dies before the testator. The failure occurs under an implied condition that the beneficiary must survive the testator.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Testator Thomas left a specific devise of Blackacre to beneficiary Betty. Betty died two years before Thomas. The gift lapsed for failure of the survival condition, so Blackacre passed under the residuary clause instead.
Testator Tina devised her jewelry to nephew Ned. Ned predeceased Tina by six months. The devise lapsed because Ned failed to survive the testator, causing the jewelry to pass by intestacy.
Liam Larson executed a will devising property to a trust he had created. He later revoked the trust before his death. The devise lapsed because the trust no longer existed at the time of death, so the property passed under the residuary clause instead.
Testator Terry devised his boat to sister Susan. Susan died before Terry. The gift lapsed under the survival condition, and the boat passed to the residuary beneficiary named in the will.
Lakeshore Industries received a specific devise in a will that named no alternate taker. The named beneficiary predeceased the testator. The lapse caused the property to pass under the residuary clause as provided by the will's terms.
Testator Theo left a cash legacy to friend Fred. Fred died before Theo. The legacy lapsed, and the cash passed under the residuary clause because no alternate taker had been named.
The gift fails because an implied condition of survival is not met. The property then passes under the residuary clause or by intestacy unless the will provides otherwise.
Supporting sources
Only if the will expressly states that lapsed gifts fall into the residue. Without that language the gift may pass by intestacy instead.
The devise lapses unless the will provides otherwise. The property does not pour over into a nonexistent trust.
…v. Tyson , is, as Mr. Justice Holmes said, "an unconstitutional assumption of powers by courts of the United States which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct." In disapproving that doctrine we do not hold unconstitutional § 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 or any…