Posted on 06/02/2003 5:37:27 AM PDT by runningbear
I don't have the specifics in front of me, but I think that unless there's a court order otherwise, Scott has the legal right to dispose of his property as he sees fit, including granting a lein on the house to his attorney.
It wouldn't be much of a "justice" system if the court automatically stripped you of all your assets the moment you were charged with a serious crime, depriving you of the means to pay for a vigorous defense.
Pay particular attention to section 255
CALIFORNIA CODES
PROBATE CODE
SECTION 250-259
(a) A person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent is not entitled to any of the following:(1) Any property, interest, or benefit under a will of the decedent, or a trust created by or for the benefit of the decedent or in which the decedent has an interest, including any general or special power of appointment conferred by the will or trust on the killer and any nomination of the killer as executor, trustee,guardian, or conservator or custodian made by the will or trust.
2) Any property of the decedent by intestate succession.
(3) Any of the decedent's quasi-community property the killer would otherwise acquire under Section 101 or 102 upon the death of the decedent.
(4) Any property of the decedent under Part 5 (commencing with Section 5700) of Division 5.
(5) Any property of the decedent under Part 3 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 6.
(b) In the cases covered by subdivision (a):
(1) The property interest or benefit referred to in paragraph (1)of subdivision (a) passes as if the killer had predeceased thedecedent and Section 21110 does not apply.
(2) Any property interest or benefit referred to in paragraph (1)of subdivision (a) which passes under a power of appointment and by reason of the death of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent, and Section 673 not apply.
(3) Any nomination in a will or trust of the killer as executor,trustee, guardian, conservator, or custodian which becomes effective as a result of the death of the decedent shall be interpreted as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.
251. A joint tenant who feloniously and intentionally kills another joint tenant thereby effects a severance of the interest of the decedent so that the share of the decedent passes as the decedent's property and the killer has no rights by survivorship. This section applies to joint tenancies in real and personal property, joint and multiple-party accounts in financial institutions, and any other form of co ownership with survivorship incidents.
252. A named beneficiary of a bond, life insurance policy, or other contractual arrangement who feloniously and intentionally kills the principal obligee or the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy, or other contractual arrangement, and it becomes payable as though the killer had pre deceased the decedent.
253. In any case not described in Section 250, 251, or 252 in which one person feloniously and intentionally kills another, any acquisition of property, interest, or benefit by the killer as a result of the killing of the decedent shall be treated in accordance with the principles of this part.
254. (a) A final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing is conclusive for purposes of this part.(b) In the absence of a final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing, the court may determine by a preponderance of evidence whether the killing was felonious and intentional for purposes of this part. The burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish that the killing was felonious and intentional for the purposes of this part.
255. This part does not affect the rights of any person who, before rights under this part have been adjudicated, purchases from the killer for value and without notice property which the killer would have acquired except for this part, but the killer is liable for the amount of the proceeds or the value of the property.
256. An insurance company, financial institution, or other obligor making payment according to the terms of its policy or obligation is not liable by reason of this part, unless prior to payment it has received at its home office or principal address written notice of aclaim under this part.
Now I am no attorney but in reading Section 255 it appears that the killer can sell the house before he is either convicted or adjudicated, but the killer is liable for the value of the property which would then go into Probate if found guilty.
So if my reading is correct, Scott could have sold it to the Peterson's and that is why Jackie refers to it as her house.
But what do I know, except I am getting more and more educated reading threads on FreeRepublic;-)
I forgot to put the link, so here it is.
Very well could be.
I know there has been a lot of talk as to what happens to the property if Scott is convicted, so I went to the codes and found section 255 interesting. I really don't know if I am interpreting it correctly, but I think so.
No, no cause for flaming, curious questions from many who forget, or hadn't kept up with all the stuff.. ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.