My father’s trust stipulated the following distribution of assets at his death: 85% divided equally to 3 sons and 15% to a grandson of the 4th son, deceased. One of the 3 sons, unmarried, no descendants, predeceased dad, leaving 2 sons and one grandson as beneficiaries.
This is somewhat difficult to follow. I assume your father had four sons, A, B, C and D. It sounds like D died before the trust was created. Correct? Also, when you refer to "a grandson of the 4th son," I assume you actually mean a
son of the fourth son, who would be your father's grandchild. Correct? In any event, we'll call that person E. C, while alive at the time the trust, died before your father, so now only A, B and E are alive. Have I got that all correct?
The trust document reads, “If son #3 has no then living descendants, my Trustee shall distribute the balance of this trust share to my then living descendants, per stripes.”
This is unclear. What does "the balance of this trust share" mean? "Balance" usually indicates the amount left over after some sort of deduction or adjustment.
Question: If the sentence ended with “living descendants,” we would think Son #3’s share would be distributed equally to the 3 remaining heirs. However, since the grandson is not a full blood relative of the testator, and was apportioned 15% of the assets, the per stirpes clause could mean the 2 sons, closer related by blood (root) should be entitled to divide the 85% balance of assets. What is the correct legal rendering the trustee should follow?
Your explanation of "full blood relative" in post #8 in the thread is flawed. You seem to be alluding to the fact that your father is only one of four grandparents of E (i.e., 1/4 of E's DNA comes from your father, while the rest comes from his other three grandparents). However, you and your siblings are not "full blood relatives" because only 1/2 of your DNA comes from your father; the other 1/2 comes from your mother. By your reasoning, a "full blood relative" is something that cannot exist except where a child is the product of incest.
Regardless, if I have the facts correct, then C's share is divided evenly between A, B and E. This is the same result that would obtain if the sentence had not included the words "per stirpes." In this context,
per stirpes means that each of the other three sons' lines (A's line, B's line and D's line) gets an equal share. Since D predeceased your father, his share goes to his descendants. Since E is his only descendant in the next generation, he gets 100% of D's share. While you're right that E being further removed could mean he'd be entitled to less, the fact that he is the only person of that generation in D's line means he gets what D would have gotten had D still been alive. If, for example, D had had four children (E, F, G and H), then we'd have a situation where A and B would each get 1/3 of C's share and E, F, G and H would each get 1/4 of 1/3 (i.e., 1/12) of C's share. The fact that, under the original split, A, B and C each get 1/3 of 85% (i.e., 28.33%) and E only gets 15% is not relevant to how C's share gets redistributed on account of C predeceasing your father.