T has two siblings, X and Y. T's boyfriend is Henrique. T has parents N and M. T has no spouse. T had a birth child, R, whom he loved very much, but T gave R up for adoption. T visits R every once in a while, and keeps in touch.
X has two children, A and B. Y has three children, J, K , and L. A has two children, D and E. B has one child, Z.
A,B, X,Y, Henrique and T all die while on vacation in the Bahamas.
T's will states:
(1) $500,000 to my brother, X.
(2) $100,000 to my friend, M.
(3) $50,000 each to my two nephews, A and B.
(4) $25,000 to my cat, Fifi.
(4) Residuary to my best friend and lover Henrique.
(5) In the event of any lapse, nothing is to be given to my parents, who I hate with all my heart.
Result?
$500,000:
X predeceases T, but antilapse applies. However, by RUSDA, A and B also predecease T. So A and B can't take. It is true that D is a potential taker; however, A is not (1) issue of T or (2) sibling of T. Therefore, anti-lapse does not apply. $500,000 collapses to the residuary.
Gift to friend M: works
50k to nephews:
Both nephews predecease T under RUSDA. Therefore, gifts lapse. Anti-lapse does not apply to nephews (see above), only issue and siblings. Therefore collapses to the residuary.
Gift to cat: can't give stuff to animals, so lapses to residuary.
Residuary: Henrique predeceases under RUSDA. And no anti-lapse for "lovers", so the residuary collapses into intestacy.
Applying intestacy statute: ignore T's parents. T has no issue or spouse.
Therefore, the rule is to T's siblings by representation.
X and Y are both dead. therefore, skip the siblings.
Next generation, the nieces and nephews: A, B, J, K, L.
A and B are both dead. Therefore, J K L each get 1/5.
A's two children, D and E, and B's child, Z, are the grand-nieces and nephews. They take at the next generation, sharing equally. What remains to be divided is 2/5 of the residuary. D, E and Z each get 2/15.
The final distribution:
M: 100k.
Blackacre+rest of estate:
J 1/5
K 1/5
L 1/5
D 2/15
E 2/15
Z 2/15