Spouses drafted mutual wills in which each bequeathed his or her entire estate to the other. The wills also included an “heir after heir" provisions, according to which, upon the passing of the surviving spouse, the children of the spouses would inherit all of his estate in unequal shares, in accordance with the terms stipulated in the wills. Alas, following the death of one of the spouses, the remaining spouse chose to completely withdraw from the will.
The Supreme Court held that as an ‘heir after an heir’ is not an ‘heir in lieu of an heir’ and hence, the estate would be distributed pursuant to the default arrangement stipulated in the law. In a mutual will, the testators are entitled to arrange the inheritance of their joint estate after the death of both, i.e., an "heir after heir" arrangement, and also include an "heir in lieu of heir" provision which names a substitute heir if the other spouse elects to withdraw from the mutual will after the death of the first spouse. Upon the general withdrawal of the spouse from the will and whenever no substitute heir was named via an "heir in lieu of heir" arrangement - the provision of the will in favor of the withdrawing spouse is canceled, and in its place the default rules of inheritance stipulated under law will apply to the estate of the deceased spouse. Here, the spouses made mutual wills in which they bequeathed their estate to each other and added an "heir after heir" provision. However, as the wills did not specify who would inherit in lieu of the withdrawing spouse, the estate of the first spouse shall be distributed pursuant to the default provisions of the law.