[panampatti]

Husband died. He has 2 grown sons & one wife (step-mother)
No will , No trust. Most assets were signed over to various parties before death.
The only asset in question are future earnings from photographs of the deceased that are sold via an agent from time to time.. The contract was in husbands name alone & the contract has the "Photographer's Successor" section listed as one of the two grown sons.
So, in California does the wife receive future earnings from the photos or 1/2 the earnings, or what?
It's a California death & all parties have lived in Calif forever.

[cdad]

The contract that was signed seems to have already named a successor. It goes to that person or entity.

[AK lawyer]

The contract that was signed seems to have already named a successor. It goes to that person or entity.

Ah, but the widow might want to see an attorney about the possibility of disputing it.

California, as do most states, gives a widow a certain portion of a decedent's estate. In California, it's called the "intestate share of the
Surviving spouse". I'm not sure that the contractual language can avoid that, particularly with California's community property laws. In fact, the transfers of the other property are suspect. She should seek legal counsel.

[cdad]

Ah, but the widow might want to see an attorney about the possiblility of disputing it.

California, as do most states, gives a widow a certain portion of a decedent's estate. In California, it's called the "intestate share of the
surviving spouse". I'm not sure that the contractual language can avoid that, particulary with California's community property laws. In fact, the transfers of the other property are suspect. She should seek legal counsel.

The issue really is timing. If he signed the contract before getting remarried then it would stand as is because of it being ruled separate property and a named successor. The only community property in question is that which is generated during the marriage. If he owned the home before marriage and never changed the title to something else then it would stand as for him giving it to any one person or persons or entity (like a charitable gift).

As it stands we don't know enough of the facts. But from the sounds of it there is a successor. And that person has been named.

[panampatti]

To clarify: husband & wife married over 20 years.
Married in California.
Married at time of husband's death. No "home" is in question... only photos.
Photo's continuing income comes from photos taken before marriage but small income comes in from time to time when photos are sold by an agency.
The Contract made with the agency one year ago shows only one of two son as "Photographer's Survivor"
Is the Wife entitled to half of this continuing income or part of it?

[cdad]

To clarify: husband & wife married over 20 years.
Married in California.
Married at time of husband's death. No "home" is in question....only photos.
Photo's continuing income comes from photos taken before marriage but small income comes in from time to time when photos are sold by an agency.
The Contract made with the agency one year ago shows only one of two son as "Photographer's Survivor"
Is the Wife entitled to half of this continuing income or part of it?

You can always take it to court but its doubtful because the photos could be argued as separate property. In that respect he had the right to leave them to whomever he wanted. And since it was stated in writing then it would be followed unless illegal. But in this case it doesn't sound illegal at all.

[AK lawyer]

I would want to look at the contract to determine whether the "Photographer's Survivor" language appears to have been intended as

• a testamentary -type disposition or
• merely to inform the other party who they should contact about arranging continuing royalty payments in case the photographer dies.