[GV70]

Nope, the statute is clear, but as you point out other statutes and case law may muddy the waters. Also remember the step children specifically cited that one statute.

To the OP, I don't think an attorney is necessary quite yet. Show the steps the actual statute. And file for probate to be named sole heir and executor citing that statute. Change the locks and protect the property in the interim.

But, if the steps challenge and get an attorney you WILL need one yourself.

I have to agree.
There are two Ca-/California and Canada/ which are very pu$$y places with totally inconsistent and irrational court decisions.

[JudyKayTee]

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure the statute is entirely clear. The case law is what counts and the facts here are blurry at best.

Once again you have muddied the waters by quoting cases which are not on point - PLEASE ask the question and then post the cases/Law as you read them/it based on that information. All you are doing is confusing the situation.

The law is VERY CLEAR and I posted it. I don't understand why YOU, a law school student, don't understand the law - and/or have posted case law which is not pertinent.

The people posting questions here are unfamiliar with the Law and how it operates and your bringing up side issues only confuses them and does not answer the question.

This question is very simple and the law was posted.

I realize you are a student with (apparently) little experience in the Law but you ask and answer your own questions within a thread.

[GV70]

Both the law and court practice are clear:
6454
"For the purpose of determining intestate succession by a person or the person's issue from or through a foster parent or stepparent, the relationship of parent and child exists between that person and the person's foster parent or stepparent if both of the following requirements are satisfied:

(a) The relationship began during the person's minority and continued throughout the joint lifetimes of the person and the person's foster parent or stepparent.

(b) It is established by clear and convincing evidence that the foster parent or stepparent would have adopted the person but for a legal barrier."

If she never tried to adopt them they have no legal grounds.

[ScottGem]

The people posting questions here are unfamiliar with the Law and how it operates and your bringing up side issues only confuses them and does not answer the question.

To adthern,
Please re read what I quoted from Judy. If you want to show off your research skills that's fine. But we are here to help the people asking questions. Most of the time these people are looking for a basic interpretation of the law so they can understand their rights. Much of the time we do advise them to seek legal counsel, but its not always necessary. Most of the time they can't afford legal counsel and much of the time its unnecessary.

Probate court is often more friendly to pro se applicants. I suspect the estate the OP is dealing with is not large. So her best course of action at THIS point in time, is what I recommended.

[cdad]

A lot of the problem comes in because the wording is split in so many ways through different sections. Here is a quote on:




6402.5.
(a) For purposes of distributing real property under this section if the decedent had a predeceased spouse who died not more than 15 years before the decedent and there is no surviving spouse or issue of the decedent, the portion of the decedent's estate attributable to the decedent's predeceased spouse passes as follows:

(1) If the decedent is survived by issue of the predeceased spouse, to the surviving issue of the predeceased spouse; if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the predeceased spouse they take equally, but if of unequal degree those of more remote degree take in the manner provided in Section 240.


Ref:

California Intestacy Laws



There it shows a 15 year rule applied.

[cdad]

I do not believe that if you have known a person for 1/2 of his/her lifetime it will result in mandatory equitable adoption and thus to give inheritance rights.

That is why I used the word may in my statement because there are so many qualifying rules that go with it. Made it a little hard to follow because of what the rules are and how they might have applied in this case.