Legal Question in Intellectual Property in California
Is a California probate court allowed to "dispose of" intellectual property dishonestly stated to be part of an author's first son's probate estate, an "estate" that almost completely consisted of either rights in copyrighted material or proceeds of a vast unjust enrichment at the second, surviving son's expense. These
1.) apparently were never all the first son''s property, although he/she claimed they were.
2.) "gifts" in part represent vastly excessive compensation for a "musical" "executor de son tort" (someone posing as an executor, but who was not really one) who was only really executor AFTER the decedent who he was nominated by law no longer owned the disputed property. (and an executor is "tied to his testator", meaning that for him to vest, I HAD to not exist.
3.) was originally obtained and no doubt, was maintained by fraudulently stating that only one child survived the author, when in fact two children survived and that fact was well known to all previous and current executors, real or self-asserted, who lied in order to keep that child's share for themselves.
Is it too much of a logical jump to claim that Probate Code 250, the "slayer statute" applies when the amount stolen is far in excess of $950 and the perpetrators of the crime act exactly as they would had they literally, rather than "legally" killed the author decedent's child? (and the author decedent died suddenly, almost suspiciously shortly after expressing joy at his newborn son's birth -a long time ago)
What - or can anything- give a probate court jurisdiction over a resident of another state when one alleged beneficiary, isn't, they are the opposite, and the "case" and many previous documents filed with them in two other cases - now can be shown to, in one way or another - be completely OPPOSITE in both their hidden intent and non-obvious effects to what they were supposed to or are represented to be?
2 Answers from Attorneys
If no human being was murdered, you can not invoke the "slayer's statute." This was, as you are certainly aware, hyperbole. Please re-ask your question with more clarity, stating only the facts and leaving out the adjectives such as "fraudulently" and "dishonesty." State instead what they did that was fraudulent and/or dishonest. Also, you appear to be expressing sour grapes as to a case that the court has already ruled upon. The time to challenge assertions made in a court of law is prior to entry of judgment. You also do not state what your role is in this matter, nor your relation to the decedent; nor when any of this happened. Take it from the top stating (only) who, what, where, when, why, and how.
All good advice; also, you might also ask it under a more appropriate heading, such as "probate," since a probate proceeding seems to be the central issue. LawGuru questions are farmed out for response based upon attorneys' areas of practice, and I'm sure you'll get more, and better, responses. By the way, I note that your question does not contain the words "will" "trust" or "intestate," and some such reference would seem helpful in forming an opinion and writing an answer.
Related Questions & Answers
-
What will be the grounds of the trade mark objections Asked 4/13/11, 7:48 pm in United States California Intellectual Property
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
