Help with my sums

[Clitheroekid]

Arithmetic has never been my strong point, and having spent far too long trying to work this out I'm sure there's a simple way of doing it that I'm not aware of.

Mt problem is that I have an estate, with the following beneficiaries - A and B 25% each, C 20%, D, E and F 10%.

So far, so good, even I can deal with that!

But I've just been informed that E has dropped off their perch, and the Will says that in that event the others take according to their share.

In my naivety I thought I'd just have to add 10% to each of the others, but for some reason that doesn't quite work out - near, but not exact.

Is there a simple way of doing this?

TIA.

[johnhemming]

Not really. You need to add a 9th rather than a 10th. That is a bit of a nuisance because it recurs. (I don't know the unicode for recurring)
27.777777777777777 27 7/9
27.777777777777777 27 7/9
11.111111111111111 11 1/9
22.222222222222222 22 2/9
11.111111111111111 11 1/9

= 98 + 18/9

[kiloran]

I would say A and B get 25/90ths of the total
C gets 20/90ths
D and E get 10/90ths

--kiloran
edit: which I think is the same as johnhemming's response

[GoSeigen]

Arithmetic has never been my strong point, and having spent far too long trying to work this out I'm sure there's a simple way of doing it that I'm not aware of.

Mt problem is that I have an estate, with the following beneficiaries - A and B 25% each, C 20%, D, E and F 10%.

So far, so good, even I can deal with that!

But I've just been informed that E has dropped off their perch, and the Will says that in that event the others take according to their share.

In my naivety I thought I'd just have to add 10% to each of the others, but for some reason that doesn't quite work out - near, but not exact.

Is there a simple way of doing this?

TIA.

E had 10% so the others were sharing the remaining 90%. E's portion was therefore 1/9th the size of the other beneficiaries' total (you can check this if not convinced.) So you have to raise the survivors' shares by 1/9th each (=11.111%) not 1/10th.

GS

[Clitheroekid]

Thanks to all - problem duly solved!

[ChrisNix]

Thanks to all - problem duly solved!

Reminds me of the old Western attorney confronted with an estate of 11 horses. Under will one sibling was to get a quarter, another a third, and the last the remainder.

How’d he solve it?

[Dod101]

Thanks to all - problem duly solved!

Reminds me of the old Western attorney confronted with an estate of 11 horses. Under will one sibling was to get a quarter, another a third, and the last the remainder.

How’d he solve it?

Since shooting one horse would not solve it I suppose he lends a horse so that there 12 horses. One beneficiary gets 3 horses, another 4 horses and He takes back the horse he lent and gives the third beneficiary 4 horses.

Dod

[swill453]

Reminds me of the old Western attorney confronted with an estate of 11 horses. Under will one sibling was to get a quarter, another a third, and the last the remainder.

How’d he solve it?

Since shooting one horse would not solve it I suppose he lends a horse so that there 12 horses. One beneficiary gets 3 horses, another 4 horses and He takes back the horse he lent and gives the third beneficiary 4 horses.

Then signs the third beneficiary as a client, to sue for the rest of their inheritance.

Scott.

[ChrisNix]

Thanks to all - problem duly solved!

Reminds me of the old Western attorney confronted with an estate of 11 horses. Under will one sibling was to get a quarter, another a third, and the last the remainder.

How’d he solve it?

Since shooting one horse would not solve it I suppose he lends a horse so that there 12 horses. One beneficiary gets 3 horses, another 4 horses and He takes back the horse he lent and gives the third beneficiary 4 horses.

Dod

Very good! He puts his horse in the field with the others, gives out the quarter and third, takes his horse out and hands over his bill.

Chris