Replies

I tend to agree with you that at this point the house is owned by Scott, period. You say he has an undivided half-ownership interest in the house. I would go further and say that since the house was apparently owned in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, that he just plain owns the house, now. (Subject to the money owed on it, of course.)

California law, of which I don't know the specifics, would have to be superimposed on all these suppositions.

Scott may own the house, but the personal property in the house would go by inheritance, I think. Scott does not necessarily own all of THAT.

There is of course no need for the Rochas to have a power of attorney as regards Laci; I'd think they would simply apply to have one of them be the representative of her estate. Don't know if they have--probably they have. But on that, too, Scott could give them a fight. It appears that, egged on by his mother, he might be just low enough to do it, too. He'd probably lose. I think one of the Rochas will indeed be named the representative of her estate. Or some neutral party.

When a person dies, the real property has to go somewhere. The law doesn't want there to be gaps in ownership of property. So there is that concept of "seisin" which says that the correct heir to the property has seisin from the time of death. (Sometimes spelled "seizin".) Probably a similar (but not the same) concept would operate to make Scott the owner of the house, as of the time Laci died. The point about the lack of a death certificate does give pause, though. We all know she is going to be "officially" dead, but is she "officially" dead, now? I'd say that he became owner of the house on her death. Period. (Motive, anyone?)

When the presumptive heirs (the Rochas) to property have reason to believe that someone is going to "waste" the property, seems to me that they can get authority from the probate court to take measures to safeguard the property. I'm talking about Laci's personal property here. Wonder if the Rochas have anything pending in the probate court to try to cause a sequestration of assets, a safeguarding of all the assets subject to inheritance. Seems that they could at least ask for such a thing. It also seems to me that McAllister is thinking the same thing--b/c apparently he turned over those Tiffany lamps to the Rochas right quick.

There is absolutely no reason for Jackie P. and company to be so nasty about things like Laci's wedding dress. If you look at today's article, you'll see that there's a sort of theme: Jackie was "perfectly willing" to give the Rochas the less-saleable items, but she seemed to want to keep things like Laci's rings, which were reportedly recovered from a jeweler who was making them into a new piece of jewelry. This reportedly included her wedding ring. Which brings me to another question: why is Laci's wedding ring not lying on the bottom of San Francisco Bay?

Hi "Devil"~~~~~~

California law, of which I don't know the specifics, would have to be superimposed on all these suppositions.

I believe that under California "usual and cutomary" deed construction they likely recorded the deed as being owning the property "by the entireties" which is the same thing as "joint tenants".

Scott may own the house, but the personal property in the house would go by inheritance, I think. Scott does not necessarily own all of THAT.

California is a community property state. Both of the parties own the properties. Kind of like the joint tenant an by the entireties concept in real estate ownership. Absent a will there is really little or nothing to decide.

There is of course no need for the Rochas to have a power of attorney as regards Laci; I'd think they would simply apply to have one of them be the representative of her estate.

Scott is Laci's next of kin by virtue of marriage- not Laci's parents. Given that Laci died intestate, there is no formal estate that they can administer or be the executors of. Even if there is some identifiable "separate property" (maybe a pre-nup?) I don't think that there wouuld be a situation where this could occur.

When the presumptive heirs (the Rochas) to property have reason to believe that someone is going to "waste" the property, seems to me that they can get authority from the probate court to take measures to safeguard the property. I'm talking about Laci's personal property here. Wonder if the Rochas have anything pending in the probate court to try to cause a sequestration of assets, a safeguarding of all the assets subject to inheritance.

Unfortunately, the Rochas are not the presumptive heirs- Scot is the estate, he is the heir at this time. That will change, of course, if he is convicted for Laci's murder.

There is no probate case for the Rochas to file an action under. The easiest way to tie the house up if someone tries to transfer ownership or sell it, is really simple. They should file a wrongful death action against Scott and file a lis pendens against the property. No one in their right mind would buy the property then.

As I know you are aware I do not support Scott Peterson, nor have I prematurely found him guilty. What I find somewhat distasteful in the house plundering incident, is that Geragos had already agreed to allow the Roches into the property. I believe that was to be this coming Tuesday. (I'm sure that someone will correct me if that's the wrong day.) I think that he wanted to document what was removed by the Roches. It appears to me that Mrs Roches, for what ever the reason, had an attack of temper and jumped the gun.

Just a point to ponder. If the Roaches had the legal ability to enter the home and remove property, why on Earth did their own attorney tell them not to???