Weiford noted that if a death certificate lists the cause of death as unknown or involving violence, the title and sales process is halted and the situation investigated.
Under the state Probate Code, if a joint tenant feloniously and intentionally kills another joint tenant, "the killer has no rights by survivorship."
I think what they mean is that the title company would not issue clear title and thus no normal sale could proceed until the issue of guilt or innocence is established, if the issue is contested. Thus, the property automatically goes to the survivor unless someone raises an objection. I imagine that the objection would have to be raised in court, and then the court would put a lien of some kind, perhaps a lis pendens, on the property while the determination is being made.
However, no one has, to my knowledge, gone to court to contest Scott's right of survivorship. As of now, he is 100 percent owner of the house, by law.
Scott would still be half owner of the house, the only issue would be Laci's 1/2 interest in the house and who it went to. Also, Scott would be the only person right now with the right to possess the house, and he could designate who can go in and who cannot. All others, such as the Rochas, are trespassers.
That's a legalistic view of it. I feel for the Rochas, and understand their desire to collect some things of Laci's to keep. It's the job of the cops to intervene between emotions and the proper way of doing things, and the cops let us down in this instance. They should have told the Rochas to go get a court order. Their conduct means that any of us in any kind of dispute could have our homes invaded by someone claiming that it's a "civil matter" and if the cops are on their side, they can take our property and force us to sue to get it back.