Talk:Per stirpes

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The article's value depends upon the distinction from per capita. Modifying per capita by the addition of by generation makes the two indistinguishable. Snaildarter (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 2 is incorrect. The caption on Figure 2 is correct, but the image itself mislabels "Per Stirpes" and "Per Capita". I would fix it, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.217.37 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just echoing what the person above said - the graph is incorrect even though the description is correct. 9/26/17

Note that the spouses of A, B, and C are not considered. They are not a part of the branch. Therefore, even if A, B or C died leaving a wife as well as children, all 100% of the assets pass to the children of A, B, or C and 0% nothing passes to the wives or husbands.

English law[edit]

Per stirpes is derived from English law. The article as written has an entirely American perspective. Per stirpes as interpreted in the common law is not entirely as indicated here.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether any intervening generations are alive[edit]

The following is wrong:

To give the effect indicated in these examples the clause should also include a provision that no beneficiary being a grandchild or remoter descendant will take a share if his or her parent is alive and takes a share.

The test should not be whether “his or her parent is alive”; it should be whether any intervening generations are alive. I could craft words to that effect, but doing so would violate WP:NOR. So a proper standard phrasing from a proper citeable source would be welcomed. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jargon[edit]

The table uses two terms not mentioned elsewhere in the article: "live taker" and "drop". These need defining. —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]