A residuary clause can look straightforward when it names a group of relatives and says they take “equally.” But the result can change dramatically when one or more of those beneficiaries dies before the testator.
That is the central lesson of Johnson v. Mayers, SC-2025-0297 (Ala. June 27, 2025). The Alabama Supreme Court held that Alabama’s antilapse statute did not apply where the will used survivorship language and provided an alternative disposition if none of the named beneficiaries survived the testator. Because only one named beneficiary survived, that beneficiary received the entire residuary estate.
For estate planners, the case is a reminder that the words used to address a beneficiary’s death are not boilerplate. They decide whether a deceased beneficiary’s descendants take by substitution, whether surviving named beneficiaries take a larger share, or whether the property passes to a different contingent class.
The dispute in Johnson
The will first left the estate to the testator’s father. If the father did not survive, the will directed that the residuary estate pass equally to four named siblings. It then provided that, if none of those persons survived the testator, the estate would pass to the testator’s nearest living heirs.
By the time the testator died, only one of the four named siblings was alive. The children of two deceased siblings argued that Alabama’s antilapse statute should allow them to take their parents’ shares by representation.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that the will’s survivorship language and its alternative gift showed a contrary testamentary intent sufficient to prevent application of the statutory default. The sole surviving named beneficiary therefore took the entire residue.
What Alabama’s antilapse statute does
Alabama’s antilapse statute, Ala. Code § 43-8-224, is a default rule. In qualifying circumstances, it can preserve a devise for the issue of a deceased beneficiary who was a grandparent or lineal descendant of a grandparent of the testator.
The rule exists because a will may name a close relative who later dies before the testator. Without a substitute disposition, a strict lapse rule can produce a result the testator may not have intended.
But the statute does not override a clearly expressed contrary intent. Alabama law gives controlling effect to the testator’s intent as expressed in the will, and construction rules such as the antilapse statute apply unless the instrument indicates otherwise.
Why survivorship language mattered
In Johnson, the Court treated the will’s requirement that the named beneficiaries survive the testator as evidence that the gift was limited to the named beneficiaries still living at death. The will also addressed the contingency that none of those named beneficiaries survived, directing the residue to the testator’s heirs.
Those two features worked together:
Survivorship language indicated that only named beneficiaries who outlived the testator would take; and
An alternative gift answered the next question—what happens if all of the named beneficiaries are gone.
The result was not a partial share for each deceased beneficiary’s descendants. Instead, the one surviving named beneficiary received the full residue.
“Equally” does not answer every survivorship question
Estate planners often use language such as “to my children equally,” “to my siblings in equal shares,” or “share and share alike.” That language identifies the intended division among the relevant beneficiaries, but it may not answer what happens when one of them predeceases the testator.
The answer depends on the entire clause, including:
whether the beneficiaries are named individually or described as a class;
whether the will requires survival;
whether it names substitute beneficiaries;
whether the instrument directs distribution by representation, per stirpes, or per capita; and
whether it contains a gift-over if one, some, or all beneficiaries fail to survive.
A drafter should not assume that “equally” alone carries the client’s intended result through every possible death sequence.
Three questions for every residuary clause
1. Who takes if one named beneficiary dies before the testator?
The client may intend for that beneficiary’s children to take the share, for the surviving named beneficiaries to divide it, or for a separate contingent beneficiary to receive it. Those are different plans and should be stated directly.
2. Does the client want descendants to take by substitution?
If the client wants a deceased beneficiary’s descendants to step into that beneficiary’s place, the will should say so clearly. If the client does not want substitution, survivorship language and an expressly stated alternative plan should be reviewed for consistency with that objective.
3. What happens if no primary beneficiary survives?
A complete residuary clause should address the failure of the entire primary class. The alternative gift should be coordinated with the client’s intended heirs, charitable beneficiaries, trust plan, or other ultimate recipients.
A drafting review checklist
Before finalizing a will that names multiple relatives in a residuary clause, test the clause against common scenarios.
ScenarioQuestion to answerOne named beneficiary dies before the testatorDoes that beneficiary’s share pass to descendants, surviving named beneficiaries, or a different contingent beneficiary?A beneficiary dies leaving children from a prior relationshipDoes the instrument clearly include or exclude those descendants?Only one named beneficiary survivesShould that person receive the entire residue, or should deceased beneficiaries’ descendants share?No named beneficiary survivesWho takes next, and is that group identified precisely enough?A beneficiary disclaims or is treated as having predeceasedDoes the clause address that possibility consistently with the client’s intended distribution?A beneficiary is a minor or has special needsShould the gift pass outright, to a trust, or under another protective arrangement?
The client should be able to hear each scenario in plain language and confirm the intended result. That conversation often reveals a gap that a general “equally” provision does not solve.
Practice points for estate planners
Use the client’s distribution objective, not inherited form language
A prior will form may say that gifts pass “to my surviving children” or “to my siblings who survive me.” Those words may be entirely appropriate, but they should not remain simply because they appeared in an earlier document. Ask whether the client wants a bloodline or family-branch result, a survivor-take-all result, or a different contingent plan.
Coordinate specific gifts and the residue
A will may have detailed survival language in a specific devise but vague language in the residuary clause—or the reverse. Review the instrument as a whole to make sure its survival requirements, substitute gifts, and residual plan do not pull in different directions.
Avoid relying on the statutory default as the estate plan
The antilapse statute can supply a rule when the will is silent, but the default may not match the client’s intent. A will should state the intended succession plan rather than leave a family’s distribution to statutory construction after a death occurs.
Revisit old wills after major family changes
The operative will in Johnson had been executed decades before the testator died. A periodic review after a beneficiary’s death, divorce, birth of grandchildren, blended-family change, or substantial asset change can prevent the residue from passing under language the client no longer understands or would not choose today.
Administration lesson: resolve dispositive construction issues early
Johnson also contains an important procedural point. During the estate administration, the administratrix sought a declaratory judgment construing the will and determining whether the antilapse statute applied. The Supreme Court held that the declaratory judgment was final and appealable because it resolved all issues presented in that construction petition, even though the overall estate administration had not yet reached final settlement.
For personal representatives and probate litigators, that provides a practical roadmap. When a construction issue determines who is entitled to the residue, resolving it early can prevent distributions based on an incorrect reading of the will and can give the estate a clear path toward final settlement.
The decision does not mean every interim probate ruling is immediately appealable. It means that a declaratory judgment that conclusively resolves the claims raised in a will-construction petition can be final for appellate purposes even while other estate-administration work continues.
Bottom line
Johnson v. Mayers reinforces a familiar but important proposition: the testator’s expressed intent controls. Alabama’s antilapse statute is a valuable default rule, but it gives way when a will clearly requires survivorship and supplies a contrary contingency plan.
For drafters, the lesson is to make the survivorship sequence explicit. For administrators, it is to identify and resolve construction questions before distributing an estate. And for clients, it is a reminder that a few words in the residuary clause can determine whether descendants inherit—or whether one surviving named beneficiary receives everything.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It discusses Alabama law and the particular will language considered in Johnson v. Mayers. The outcome in an individual estate depends on the governing instrument, family relationships, relevant facts, and applicable law.