I am in Pa. This just happened to my sister. She was married to her husband for 5 years when he passed away without a will. Her lawyer told her,since they lived in the same house,everything he owned that was in the house,now belonged to her and she could do with it as she wished. This included the house itself. He had grown children from a previous marriage,which technically,weren't entitled to anything. His children contacted a lawyer about taking over half of the house,they didn't get very far. My sister inherited everything outright. She of course,gave his children quite a bit,including his life insurance,whatever belongings they wanted of their Dad's, and a restored 1965 Corvette.She wanted to be fair to his children,but it did upset her that they tried to take her house away from her.
Probably is different all over,but that is how it worked for her.
2007-04-20 03:20:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jan 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
California is a community property state.
I am not sure what you mean by "owned." If, in fact, the husband had fully paid the mortgage, and held the title in his own name, then the house was most likely his separate property. Since you say "children," I assume there is more than one child. That would mean that the surviving spouse would inherit 1/3 of the value of the property, and the remaining 2/3 would be divided among the children.
This will all change, and be more complicated, if the husband was still paying on the mortgage during the marriage (since those payments would be with community property), or if the surviving spouse's name is on the title, or there are other indications that the husband intended the house to be a community asset.
At any rate, given the value of California property, the surviving spouse needs to consult a probate attorney.
2007-04-20 10:29:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
More than likely it, it will depend on who holds the mortgage to the house. If there is still an outstanding mortgage or if the person that is now deceased took out a home improvement/equity loan, then the house likely belongs to the creditor.
In most states the priority would be the surviving spouse. It has nothing to do with how many years the "widow" spent with the man.
2007-04-20 02:57:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by bottleblondemama 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
it depends...I beleive that California is a Uniform Probate Code state but I may be wrong.
In this case if the widow did not onw the house with the deceased then she is entitled to a life estate in the house meaning she can live there as long as the bills are paid and she does not commit waste ( damage the house or otherwise lower its value) until she dies. She also has a 1/2 interest in all of his personal and real property after she is allowed a year's income usually 10,000 to 20,000 dollars and a possible dowry that will change the amount she can claim based on Calif law.
Hope that helps....by the way these things are unfortuantely usually ugly...let the lawyers fight it out....but the laws on intestacy are pretty clear....Intestacy ( dying without a will)
2007-04-20 09:12:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dr. Luv 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Depends on how the property is titled. If the property is owned w/ the spouse under a JOINT TENANCY then the spouse has the right of survivorship and they get the property. If the property is owned under a TENANCY IN COMMON arrangement, then the deceased's ownership share has to be disbursed through his estate. If his wife is his sole beneficiary then she gets the house. If not, then it has to be distributed equitable amoongst the beneficiaries which may mean that unless his other beneficiaries are his minor children, then property is most likely sold and the proceeds shared out.
2007-04-20 03:13:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by boston857 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
When you die without a will it is called dying intestate. The Probate court will take jurisdiction of the property and determine who owns the house. The good news is that they have to follow a statutory guideline. The widow will get the property before the children.
2007-04-20 14:33:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by plutolawyer 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
the law on succession, and hereditary rights depends on every state laws. in california, its the will that governs, that so called legitimes wont exist, but without or in absence of a will, intestate succession applies, wherein, it shows what community of property applies, it shows that there are children of previous marriage, the children of that marriage have succession rights, then when was the property purchased before the second marriage or during the second marriage, the spouse usually in the law of california shall have a right inferior to the right of the children, so property funds must be determined, the date of purchase, and the capacity of the children to inherit or succeed.
2007-04-20 04:13:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by joseph_abri 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree 100% with the guy, there's no way that i might want to signal a prenuptial contract. a wedding ceremony is in accordance with trust and to have those options formerly even marrying is disgusting, i imagine the guy might want to search for a respectable lady no longer someone who's of route worried extra about funds, which by the fashion she hasn't worked for - she in basic terms got here about to have a rich grandfather. She appears like the gold digger.
2016-10-18 02:44:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Erika 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Entitlement is setup by probate of the will, without a will, you will have to prove any relationship to a probate judge, good luck!
2007-04-20 02:56:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
It should be the spouce, but I imagine they're will be some litigation over the house.
2007-04-20 03:27:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by evil_paul 4
·
0⤊
1⤋