and Shirley Hollister....” Each spouse is named as an individual. They are not referred to as “Mr. and Mrs. Olson” nor as ‘William and Shirley Hollis-ter.” [¶ 12.] The clause contains other language to support the position that John intended that his estate be divided sixteen ways versus fourteen ways. After naming all sixteen individuals, the clause provides that they should receive his property “in equal shares, share and share alike. That should any of the individuals above named predecease me, then their share of my estate shall go to their [descendant’s] surviving.” [¶ 13.] First, John refers to his friends as individuals. Second, he requests that they receive his property “in equal shares, share and share alike.” See In re Estate of Nagl, 408 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Iowa Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Third, he states that if one individual
holding applicable the directors interpretation of 20 cfr  718205c2 to mean anything that has an actual or real share in producing an effect and that any condition which hastens death fits this description  holding that a must be cured or 100 healed policy is a per se violation of the ada because the policy does not allow a casebycase assessment of an individuals ability to perform essential functions of the individuals job with or without accommodation holding that statutory language is conclusive in absence of clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary  holding that the language equally share and share alike indicates an intention to make a per capita distribution or an equal division among the number of individuals named holding that it is presumed that no change in the commonlaw was intended by the legislatures enactment of a statute on the same subject unless the language employed clearly indicates such an intention