[Bahbah]

". But under the state law, someone who murders a co-owner "has no rights by survivorship."...Following his murder convictions, Peterson retains his stake in the home...."

How can both statements be true?

[twinzmommy]

The house is half his. They are referring to Laci's half. He retains interest in HIS half, but he is not granted her half of it.

Make sense?

[ArrogantBustard]

How can both statements be true?

Because, contra the feminist-inspired claptrap in the headline, the house wasn't "hers" ... it was "theirs". And foul, convicted murderer or no, he still holds half ownership of the house in his own right. What's at issue is the disposition of her half ownership.

[Centaur]

It must be some quirk in the California law. In this state, if a husband murders his wife, he gets nadda in a jointly held home. The slayer's act says that for purposes of inheritance, the slayer is deemed to have predeceased his victim. That being the case, the house would have passed to the wife by his "deemed" predecease.

[El Gran Salseron]

He retains his stake in the house but has no survivorship rights, i.e. he doesn't inherit his deceased wife's half.

[libstripper]

Simple. Scott and Lacy started out with equal, undivided interests in the house. If Scott had not murdered Lacy and she'd died in childbirth, her undivided half interest would have passed to him and he'd have title to the entire house, subject to any encumbrances (mortgages, etc.) that had been put on the house. Since he murdered her, the law prohibits him from receiving that undivided half interest and it passes to her heirs, in this case, her parents.