Why You Always Need Contingent Beneficiaries in Your Trust or Will

Nearly three years after Janet Moultis passed away, her estate remains tied up in probate court. At the center of the conflict is not the absence of instructions—her 1974 will was detailed and deliberate—but rather how Connecticut courts now interpret survivorship language like “survivor take all.”

Moultis intended that if her husband and parents predeceased her, her household possessions and half of her estate would pass to her surviving brothers and sisters, while the other half would go to a relative on her husband’s side. Because she had no children, her siblings understood that her plan was for them alone to inherit. But three of her siblings died before her, leaving children of their own.

Under Connecticut’s anti-lapse statute, if a beneficiary dies before the testator, their share can pass to their descendants, unless the will explicitly provides otherwise. Historically, phrases like “if they survive me” or “survivor take all” were treated as sufficient to cut off heirs. That changed in 2007 with Ruotolo v. Tietjen. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that survivorship language alone is not enough. Unless the will clearly says that heirs of predeceased beneficiaries are excluded, or names alternative beneficiaries, the anti-lapse statute applies.

For Moultis’ estate, that ruling created a serious conflict. Her executors argued that her nieces and nephews should inherit their deceased parents’ shares. Her surviving siblings disagreed, saying her intent was obvious and her repeated instructions should have carried the day. The case has consumed years and more than $120,000 in legal fees, leaving family members drained financially and emotionally.

This dispute illustrates a lesson I stress to every estate planning client: always name contingent beneficiaries. A contingent beneficiary is the person or group of people who receive a gift if the first beneficiary dies before you. Without naming contingents, your estate plan leaves room for the anti-lapse statute—or a court—to decide where your property goes.

When I draft wills or trusts, I go through scenarios with clients: What happens if your spouse passes before you? If one of your children does? Do you want their share to go to their children, to your other heirs, or somewhere else entirely? These conversations are sometimes uncomfortable, but they are essential. They allow clients to make clear, deliberate choices rather than leaving things up to default rules that may not reflect their wishes.

The Moultis case shows why this matters. Survivorship language that once seemed airtight no longer is. Courts view it as boilerplate unless it’s backed up with specific instructions. A single clause naming contingent beneficiaries could have avoided years of uncertainty, kept family savings intact, and ensured that Moultis’ estate was distributed exactly as she intended.

The broader point is simple: estate planning documents are not “set it and forget it.” Laws change, and so does life. Reviewing your plan regularly, clarifying your wishes in detail, and naming contingent beneficiaries are some of the surest ways to protect your legacy from confusion and conflict.

Moultis’ estate is still awaiting resolution, but the takeaway for the rest of us is clear. A well-drafted plan, with contingencies spelled out, spares your family from unnecessary legal battles and preserves your intent long after you’re gone.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US