Intestacy, the Surviving Spouse, and the Half-Blood Cousin
Priya dies intestate in California, unmarried and without children. Her parents predeceased her. She is survived by: her brother Dev (full sibling), her half-sister Lila (same mother, different father), her aunt Rosa (mother's sister), and her cousin Tomas (Rosa's son). Priya's estate consists of a $600,000 brokerage account and a $150,000 car collection. She also had a $50,000 credit card debt and a $30,000 student loan. Priya's longtime partner, Jordan, lived with her for 12 years but they never married or registered as domestic partners. Jordan claims he is entitled to a share because Priya "treated him like family" and he helped pay for the car collection.
1. Distribute Priya's intestate estate under California intestacy rules. Show the shares and explain each claimant's status.
Read the worked answer
Under California intestacy (Prob. Code §§ 6400 et seq.), with no spouse and no issue, the estate passes to parents if living; here they are not. It then passes to issue of the parents - i.e., Priya's siblings and their issue.
- Dev (full brother): takes a share as a sibling.
- Lila (half-sister): takes a share as a sibling. Under California law, a half-blood relative takes the same share as a whole-blood relative at the same degree. So Dev and Lila split equally: $375,000 each (gross estate $750,000 ÷ 2).
- Rosa (aunt): does not take, because a closer generation (siblings) survives. Rosa would take only if no siblings or their issue survived.
- Tomas (cousin): takes nothing for the same reason.
- Jordan: takes nothing. California does not recognize common-law marriage, and an unregistered partner has no intestate share. His contributions to the car collection may support a contract or unjust enrichment claim, but not an inheritance share.
Debts ($80,000) are paid from the estate before distribution, reducing the net to $670,000, or $335,000 each to Dev and Lila, assuming no exempt property issues.
2. Suppose Dev had predeceased Priya, leaving one child. How would the distribution change, and what anti-lapse rule applies?
Read the worked answer
If Dev predeceased leaving a child, the child takes Dev's share by representation under California's intestacy scheme. California uses a modern per stirpes / per capita at each generation approach for issue of the parents: the estate is divided at the first generation with a living member. Lila (living sibling) takes her one-half share; Dev's child takes Dev's one-half share. Result: Lila $375,000; Dev's child $375,000 (before debt).
Note the anti-lapse distinction: anti-lapse statutes apply to wills, not intestacy. Intestate succession already provides for representation, so no anti-lapse statute is needed. The exam trap is to import will concepts (lapse, anti-lapse) into an intestacy question. The correct framing is representation, and the key check is whether the deceased sibling left issue. If Dev left no issue, his share would be redistributed to Lila (and Rosa/Tomas would still be excluded).
3. Jordan sues, claiming a share based on his 12-year relationship and financial contributions. Evaluate his strongest legal theories and likely outcome.
Read the worked answer
Jordan has no intestate rights - California limits intestate heirs to blood relatives and a registered spouse/domestic partner. His viable theories:
- Marvin-type implied contract (cohabitation agreement): If Priya and Jordan had an express or implied agreement to share property, he could enforce it. But Marvin claims are contract claims, not inheritance claims, and the burden is on Jordan to prove the agreement with specificity. "Treated like family" is insufficient.
- Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit for the car collection: He would need to trace specific contributions and show an expectation of repayment or ownership. Courts are reluctant to infer ownership from shared living expenses.
- Joint tenancy or title claims: If any asset was titled jointly, he could claim it by survivorship - but the facts say the accounts were Priya's.
Likely outcome: Jordan loses the inheritance claim. His best realistic recovery is reimbursement for documented, non-gratuitous contributions, which requires evidence he does not appear to have. The exam point: intestacy follows status, not affection.