A testator can attach certain conditions to a beneficiary's receipt of an inheritance. For example, the testator could require the beneficiary to be of a certain age before they receive unrestricted access to the asset, e.g. 25. Or the testator could require that the beneficiary achieve an educational milestone, e.g. a high school diploma or a bachelor's degree, before they receive unrestricted access to the asset.
The most basic condition for a beneficiary to inherit from a decedent is for the beneficiary to survive the testator. For instance, the will might say "a beneficiary must survive the testator for at least 30 days in order for their interest to vest."
Occasionally I have had cases where the will lacks a survivorship clause. My impression is that the plain-meaning of the will indicates that the beneficiary only needed to survive the testator by a moment in order for the beneficiary's interest to vest.
Of note, the lengthiest survivorship period I've seen in a will or trust has been 6 months. A 30-day survivorship period is quite common.
A recent unpublished opinion focused on the lack of survivorship clause in a will.
"The issue in this appeal is whether the probate court correctly interpreted a will. The will provision in question establishes a trust for the benefit of the testator's daughter and directs that if the daughter dies without issue, 'then and in that event my trustee shall pay, deliver and convey all of the trust estate then remaining in its hands to my son."
The testator had two children, John and Maria.
John passed away in 2014 and Maria passed away in 2020.
The trial court determined that the above language in the testator's will required John to survive Maria in order for John's interest in Maria's trust to vest. On appeal, the appellate court reversed this decision.
"None of respondents' arguments can overcome the fundamental principle
that the express language of the will controls, and there is no
requirement expressed in the will that John survive Maria. We must give
effect to the intention of the testator as expressed in the will, even if plausible arguments can be made about what Genevieve intended. (See Keller, supra, 134 Cal.App.2d 232, 236
[contrary arguments regarding testamentary intent are disregarded when
the intent of the testator can be gathered from the wording of the
will].)"
Estate of Turco, Santa Clara County Superior Court case no. 1990-1-PR-125299
