[daylate-dollarshort]

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???

[Devil_Anse]

Interesting post! Yes, I see what you're getting at about tenancy by the entireties, which as you said, would have about the same effect as the JTWROS. Both are dissolved on the death of one joint owner; real estate people would certainly want that death certificate b/f attempting anything. But the dissolution would occur by the death itself, I think.

I never thought of tenancy by the entireties as existing in community property states, it being a common law concept, I thought. But I guess what's important is that this house of theirs passes to Scott on Laci's death.

I was surprised to find out that in some community property states, the community property passes to the spouse; in others, it doesn't--the deceased's heirs other than the spouse are considered. Don't know where California falls on this.

I think you're right in that most of their property would be community property, but clearly stuff Laci inherited from, or was given by, the grandmother, would not be community. Especially if that gift by grandma was made b/f Laci's marriage. Scott better keep his meat-hooks off those Tiffany lamps, the way I see it!

There doesn't appear to have been a will. I do think there is still an estate, however. I think someone can apply to be the administrator (or whatever they call it in California when you become the representative of an intestate estate.) The question of "who's got first dibs" aside, it would be extremely impractical for Scott to be made the representative of Laci's estate, given that he is in jail. I don't think an estate representative can usually delegate his powers to another person--even by power of attorney.

I still think that the Rochas might well have some inheritance rights here. One other thing, which you pointed out, is that they have another trick up their sleeve: the civil suit against Scott, which would serve to tie up at least the real estate, until the Rochas' rights were given due consideration.

As you implied, there is very little, if any, legal justification for the Rochas' having just gone in and gotten stuff. Still, I think they considered all the possible consequences, and decided they wanted to take their chance on those consequences, rather than take their chance that the Petersons wouldn't alienate property to which they (even Scott) did not have a right.

I still applaud them; sometimes having possession of something, PRACTICALLY speaking, can be the trump card. I think we are about to see an unprecedented amount of litigation take place for a relatively small amount of property!