Replies

Section 251 is the joint tenancy section. It is NOT subject to Section 254 and the final judgment or conviction. Sec. 251 just says if one kills the other he can't take the property. Says nothing of a conviction being necessary, leading me to believe that all joint tenancy assets are effectively frozen until the matter is resolved.

You need to look at Section 254 - it sets up the standards by which the Probate Court can determine whether or not one has feloniously and intentionally killed the other for the purposes of the prohibition on inheritence.

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.

Paragraph (b) only applies in a situation like OJ's - he did not get convicted, but was determined to be liable for the killing by preponderance of the evidence in the wrongful death suit.

Absent a conviction or a court ruling under 254(b), Scott can do with his half of the community property what he wishes. An accusation and indictment is not a final judgement of conviction or a 254(b) ruling.

Absent a conviction or a court ruling under 254(b), Scott can do with his half of the community property what he wishes.

Even if Scott is convicted half of the property is still his.

The only part he will not have is Laci's half if he is convicted. Her part will go into the estate.

I'm confused at what you are trying to say. The law you quote, Section 254, appears to refer to inheritance. At the end of your post, however, you say "Scott can do with his half of the community property what he wishes."

I don't know whether in CA the surviving spouse is automatically the heir of all community property. He might be; he might not be. The community is dissolved by the death of one spouse. So there should be no community property at this point. The community might be deemed to be split between the surviving spouse and some other possible heir, such as Laci's parent(s). What belonged to Scott before Laci's death still belongs to Scott.