Posted on 06/02/2003 5:37:27 AM PDT by runningbear
Eeeuuwwww...Jeff/Geoff, ditch the mullet, not a good look, guy!
mvpel, I don't think you are correct in the matter of the diamond ring being community property.
I live in a community property state and this is what I have been told.
Anything that you brought into the marriage is your own personal property. Also any gifts that may be given to one or the other of the couples is their own personal property. Such as a grandmother gave Laci a gift of something (at the moment I don't remember what it was). When a person marries the other person gives the bride or groom (A GIFT) of a wedding ring. This then is personal property and belongs to that persons estate.
Community Property is whatever is purchased for the mutual benefit of both after the marriage.
In the absense of a Will the Community Property would be divided in half, and 1/2 of the community property plus the deceased's personal property would go to the next of kin.
If you have a Will, most married couples have Community and Personal Property "With right to survivorship to the living spouce.
If this is what Scott and Laci had, in the case of Scott being convicted of killing Laci, this part of the Will would be null and void. He cannot profit from her death.
His half of the Community Property is still his and he can keep any proceeds from his half even if convicted. He Just cannot have any of Laci's half of the Community Property or any of her Personal Property.
Yep, that's what I'm thinking, too. And, was he going to try and claim that jewelry on his homeowner's when no one was 'looking?' On none of the other posters that were out did I see anything about jewelry. Oh, boy, does he ever have some 'splaining to do.
I sure hope that the prosecutors have a copy of that flier. And, I hope that the bad seed gets up on the stand when the trial starts. I'm sure I'm dreaming about that one if Geragos has anything to say about it. ;)
PUBIC?????
You know, HLL, after the way MG tried to suck us all into thinking he'd turned into a human being, I'm afraid you're right. Guess no one asked Fieger to represent her/him in this case, he needs "exposure" right now, so he gets on TV a lot and plays the good guy.
Nancy Grace and Chris Pixley may think Scott is not entitled to anything if convicted, but obviously they don't know the law.
CALIFORNIA STATE PROBATE CODE
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.
This states that the killer is not entitled to any part of the deceased half.
IT DOES NOT SAY HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HIS OWN COMMUNITY PROPERTY.
Or "strands of hair vs. one hair".
Did you or anyone catch exactly what Dr. Baden said on Greta tonight about the clothes she had on? I thought he was telling us something we hadn't heard before, (since I thought Laci's body was naked except for the bra) but I couldn't understand what he said.
I had a hystorectomy many years ago and my current physician asked me if I had a full hystorectomy or a partial. I told her I thought I had a partial.
She then did the exam and told me I had a full hystorectomy because my cervix was also gone. I said I thought a full hystorectomy meant when they took the ovaries also. She said No! its when the cervix and uterus are removed.
I then asked her the same question as you did, and she said it just is still attached to the pelvic canal.
LOL!
I thought the same thing. I also thought that about David Westerfield in the Daniel Van Dam case.
Whimpy voice from such a big man.
And I will bet when they shake your hand it is like holding a wet dish rag. I don't like it when a man doesn't have a good grip in a handshake.
I think you're probably close to the mark, HLL...
Never!
Power of Attorney is ONLY GOOD AS LONG AS THE PERSON WHOM YOU HAVE POWER OVER IS LIVING.
This gives a person the power over your business in the case you are not able to handle matters. Such as if you were physically ill, mentally ill, or in prison. Once you are dead there is no Power of Attorney over you.
No, it is not because Scott is still considered the rightful owner of Laci's part of the property.
If you go back and read my postings at #245-#379, I do believe you will see that he has the right through the Power of Attorney to have the Peterson's sell the Community Property, but none of Laci's Personal Property. (Which I believe her ring is considered Personal Property since it was a gift to her by Scott) Half of the proceeds from the sale of Community Property would then go into the estate of Laci Peterson, which Scott cannot benefit from IF HE IS CONVICTED OF KILLING HER.
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.