Distribution of Residuary Estate in Wills and Estate

Running head: WILLS AND ESTATE 1
Wills and Estate
Student’s Name
Institution

WILLS AND ESTATE 2
Wills and Estate
Distribution of Residuary Estate
The distribution of residuary property may result in dispute concerning the manner in
which the deceased’s property or assets should be accorded to the beneficiaries and most
importantly where the will does not contain a residuary clause (Quah, 2018). Cap 146 of
Singapore’s Interstate Succession Act is in such cases used to determine the method through
which the residuary property should be distributed (Wu, 2012). The courts are particularly tasked
with identifying the residual clause, determining the property that falls under this clause, and
stipulating the way in which the assets or estate should be distributed if the residuary clause is
ambiguous.
Ambiguity in the residuary clause as was the case with Alvin Tan’s will may prompt the
application of the aforementioned Interstate Succession Act to guide the distribution of property.
One, the will can be treated as a partial intestacy in distributing the testator’s estate (O’Sullivan,
2017). Also, since the deceased was domiciled in Singapore at the time of his death then the
residuary estate inclusive of all assets and movable property such as cash and securities will be
allocated to the surviving family of the testator (Ministry of Law, 2016). In this case, the
residuary property should have gone to either the spouse or children but given that neither of the
two was alive or present, the residuary property will be allocated to the next of kin who are the
two brothers, Jim and David Tan. Therefore, since the law stipulates that next of kin be accorded
the residuary property, it implies that the two brothers who are alive have the highest stake to
claim the estate as beneficiaries.

WILLS AND ESTATE 3
However, there is a provisional yet ambiguous residuary clause in the will indicating that
the remaining estate is allocated to Elvis who did not survive the testator and died 3 years prior
to the testator’s death. This clause further stipulates that the residuary estate be absolutely
allocated to Elvis. At this juncture, under Cap 146 Elvis Tan’s wife and two children cannot
legally claim the rest of Alvin’s estate (SSO, 2019). As such, the estate worth $500,000
comprising of the house in 17 Pandan Drive and a number of DBS accounts should not be
allocated to Elvis’s wife but rather to the remaining two brothers who are ideally the next of kin
to Alvin. Thus, the illustration in the will by Alvin to exclusive accord the residuary property to
Elvis further reinforces the stake that the two brothers have on this property based on the next of
kin provision.
Alternatively, Jim and David’s claim to the estate can be viewed in light of Elvis’ death
prior to inheriting the estate as stipulated in the will. In this case, Elvis died before the testator
and it cannot be clearly established why the will was not updated. Ideally, this situation should
have warranted necessary amendments to the will to indicate alternative beneficiaries (Wu,
2012). The decision not to update the will can hence be taken as a decision made by the testator
to solely allocate the residuary gift to Elvis and not anyone else. Moreover, since the beneficiary
did not survive Alvin, this gift or benefits lapses and is subject to application of rules under
intestate succession act.
Other people entitled to the residuary property under the act are the two children of Elvis
including Fin and Hai. However, since they are minors below the age of 18, their equal share
could be placed under a trustee or allocated to their testamentary guardian (Halim & Nor, 2014).
At this juncture, the wife to Elvis, Sonia may be considered by the court as a testamentary