RGSpincich, I read the above section, 253, to mean (any situation that is not covered) in Section 250,251, or 252 shall be treated in accordance with the principles of those sections.
Therefore, I still believe the following section would apply
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.
Therefore the above part a final judgement does not affect the rights of someone who purchased the property from the killer.
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.
IMO since California is a community property state and regardless if Scott killed Laci, half of the property still belongs to him.
What would be the point in not allowing him to sell it now? Laci's half would still go into probate so Scott will not benefit from it no matter if it is sold now or after he is convicted.
In the long run half of the estate is still his.
Are there any California lawyers out there who can interpert the exact meaning of these codes for us?