Which statement best describes the difference between common law lapse rules and UPC anti-lapse provisions?

• A. Common law always preserves the gift through the residuary; UPC replaces with descendants.
• B. Common law ignores survivorship language; UPC respects it.
• C. Common law and UPC are identical.
• D. UPC always sends to the testator's estate.

Answer: (A)

The concept being tested is what happens to a gift when the named beneficiary dies before the testator, and how UPC anti-lapse changes that outcome.

Under traditional common law, a gift to a beneficiary who predeceases the testator generally lapses. If there’s a residuary clause, the gift often ends up in the residuary estate and then ultimately passes as part of the estate or as the residuary dictates; if there’s no effective salvage through the will, the gift can be lost to intestacy. In other words, without a fallback provision, the intended recipient doesn’t receive the gift.

The UPC introduces an anti-lapse rule: if a predeceasing beneficiary is a relative who would have been within the testator’s line of descent (typically a close family member), the gift does not fail. Instead, it passes to the predeceased beneficiary’s descendants, usually per stirpes, so the gift still goes to someone in that family line. This preserves the testator’s intent to benefit that branch of the family, even though the original beneficiary did not survive.

So the best description is that common law lapse often results in the gift failing unless salvaged by a residuary clause, while the UPC anti-lapse provisions push the gift down to the deceased beneficiary’s descendants, preserving the intended flow of the gift.