Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Step dad passed, left my sister his guns

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    Chewy65
    Calguns Addict
    • Dec 2013
    • 5041

    I don't recall if assets subject to a pour-over become subject to distribution outside of probate under the trust, or if they first must be probated wheher by a so-called summary probate. My gut tells me without probate. They pour over into the trust at moment of death. I could be wrong.

    Just took a peek at a paper hanger's web site and it says I am correct. Brownie points for me, but no brownies or Girl Scout Cookies.
    Last edited by Chewy65; 03-29-2023, 7:13 PM.

    Comment

    • #17
      Urvile
      Junior Member
      • Jul 2022
      • 47

      Originally posted by Chewy65
      I don't recall if assets subject to a pour-over become subject to distribution outside of probate under the trust, or if they first must be probated wheher by a so-called summary probate. My gut tells me without probate. They pour over into the trust at moment of death. I could be wrong.

      Just took a peek at a paper hanger's web site and it says I am correct. Brownie points for me, but no brownies or Girl Scout Cookies.
      Depends on the assets and their value. Typically, in California, they won't have to be probated if the assets are less than $184,500.

      Comment

      • #18
        Urvile
        Junior Member
        • Jul 2022
        • 47

        Can we assume the the decedent was a resident of California, and the property is located within California?

        Comment

        • #19
          dave the boar
          Member
          • Jun 2022
          • 207

          It's not a problem

          Comment

          • #20
            Urvile
            Junior Member
            • Jul 2022
            • 47

            So the law here can get pretty hairy. And by that I mean confusing. Really confusing.

            I'm actually an attorney, and estate planning/probate are part of my practice.

            There are certain exceptions to the usual laws for intra-familial transfer of firearms. There are also some exceptions for "operation of law" transfers. DOJ uses the same form for both.

            Inheritance of firearms are always "operation of law", but are not necessarily "intra-familial", and based on what the DOJ has said (but not on any law or caselaw) the DOJ does not consider step-parents/children "immediate family members" for purposes of intra-familial transfers.

            HOWEVER operation of law transfers do NOT need to go through an FFL.

            See CA Penal Code ? 27920 https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-27920/

            Also see CA Penal Code ? 16990 https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-c...ect-16990.html

            Also see this DOJ statement: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/online-r...earms%20dealer.

            BUT, things may get a bit more interesting if the decedent and the property in question is located out State. It's not a situation that has actually come up for me in a long time, but it may make the situation more complicated. The last time I dealt with that particular question was over a decade ago, and I'd have to brush up on what has changed, which I'm guessing is a wee bit (sigh).

            Note:
            1) The transferee must have a valid FSC (easy to get, take you 5 minutes).
            2) The type of weapons involved may have particular requirements. (e.g., registered assault weapons, etc.)
            3) The transferee must not be a person prohibited from owning firearms

            ALSO NOTE: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. I AM NOT ADVISING YOU TO TAKE OR NOT TAKE A PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION.

            I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU RETAIN COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL TO ADVISE YOU INSTEAD OF RELYING ON RANDOM ADVICE IN A FORUM.

            Comment

            Working...
            UA-8071174-1