You wrote, "...did not have...heirs...."  He had heirs; everyone does, even if those end up being the State/govt.  But, that aside, the question you are asking is what may fairly be inferred from ALL the words found in the will and ALL other facts surrounding its execution and concerning the dead man.  As Renee noted, inferences are dangerous, yet presuming there is NO other evidence to be found concerning any children or gkids of that son, I would operate on the presumption that there were none, yet would remain vigilant as to any further evidence that might appear.  

I firmly believe that the lawyer has not been born who can definitively construe a will unless he also knows of the events leading to and surrounding its execution and something of the life of the man who signed it.

 > In reference to wills: If an adult son died before his father's will was
 > written and no mention was made in the will of the son or his
children, can it be
 > assumed that the son did not have any children or heirs at the time
of his
 > death?

        Always bearing in mind that assumptions are dangerous, that would be
the most obvious reason.  However, I would think that it might be
tempered by the actual wording of the will.  Does the testator leave
anything to other grandchildren or does he only list his children?  It
may have been the testator's desire to just provide for his immediate
family and not for the grandchildren.  If he didn't mention ANY
grandchildren then I would be more cautious about assuming that the
deceased son had no children.


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html