(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 Division 5 (commencing with Section 5000).
(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 the decedent 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 does 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case:
Justus v. Atchison, 565 P.2d 122 (Cal. 1977).
Justus v. Atchison, 565 P.2d 122 (Cal. 1977).
· cites it 2× “" (Prob. Code, § 250.) Such a child is entitled to be included among pretermitted heirs (Prob.”
Ford v. Ford, 512 A.2d 389 (Md. 1986).
· cites it 4× “1985); Cal.Probate Code § 250 (West 1956, Cum.Supp.”
People v. Belous, 458 P.2d 194 (Cal. 1969).
· cites it 2× “Code, § 29 ["A child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person, so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth; .”
In Re Est. of Lowrie, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“Thus, Lynelle would become the person entitled to succeed to decedent's estate and Lynelle would have standing to bring this case.”
People v. Jessee, 222 Cal. App. 4th 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“) Specifically, as relevant here, these statutes cover (a) property under a will or by intestate succession (Prob. Code, § 250); (b) joint tenancy property (Prob.”
In Re Est. of Blodgett, 147 P.3d 702 (Alaska 2006).
“§ 14-2803 (2005); CAL. PROB.CODE § 250 (West 2005); WASH. REV.”
People v. Simons, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “6 (Prob. Code, § 250, subd. (a).) Instead, under such circumstances, the property interest passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.”
Marks v. Lyerla, 1 Cal. App. 4th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“…here as it pertains only to the statutory scheme dealing with the effect of homicide on succession rights. (Prob. Code, § 250 et seq.)”
Lombardi v. Blois, 230 Cal. App. 2d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964).
“’ ’ Prob. Code, § 250, provides: “Inheritance or succession ‘by right of representation ’ takes place when the descendants of a deceased person take the same share or right in the estate of another that such deceased person would have taken as an heir if living.”
Munger v. Intel Corp. (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Prob. Code § 250 (a)(4). Division 5 of the California Probate Code lists various properties including “compensation plan[s], pension plan[s], individual retirement plan[s], employee benefit plan[s] .”
Goodreau v. Lowrie, 118 Cal. App. 4th 220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“Thus, Lynelle would become the person entitled to succeed to decedent’s estate and Lynelle would have standing to bring this case. (Prob. Code, § 48, subd.”
— Cal. Probate Code § 250(a) — 1 case
Ford v. Ford, 512 A.2d 389 (Md. 1986).
“1985); Cal.Probate Code § 250 (West 1956, Cum.Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.