Confidential · Attorney Work Product · Visual Companion to the Legal Advisory Brief
The Visual Companion · California Probate · Package L01

Six charts that make the truth impossible to miss.

Strip away the citations. Strip away the jargon. Put the whole California probate puzzle on one wall and let a family see, at a glance, exactly what the law already decided for them.

ForVince Caruso & Counsel
ClientClient A — CA Residence
Companion ToLegal Advisory Brief · L01
ChartsSix · Pure Inline SVG
What you are about to see

We did the math the paralegal skipped — then we drew it so a ten-year-old could follow it.

Six charts. Each one answers a single question the family has been asking in circles for weeks. Who really owns what? Why does California split it 50/50? Why is Hawaii's answer wrong here? What is the actual roadmap out of this? Where is the tax bomb? What does "full probate" actually cost?

Read these six pages in order and you will understand the entire legal picture in about five minutes. That is the whole point. Truth, drawn plainly, cannot be argued with.

We built this companion because the Legal Advisory Brief is rigorous, but rigor does not change minds at a kitchen table. A chart does. Every diagram below is keyed to a part of the main brief. Every percentage has been recomputed from the statute, not copied from a summary. Every citation is in the footnote line so counsel can verify in thirty seconds.

Color is load-bearing in this document. Gold is a sibling. Navy is a surviving spouse. Muted gray is a decedent. Green means tax-excluded. Red means tax-triggered. Once the eye locks onto that code, the rest of the document reads itself.

Exhibit A · Chart 1 of 6

Who owns what, when?

The house in three states of the world. Before either death. After the 60% sibling dies. After a 10% sibling dies. The math is not hard. It is just non-obvious until you see it drawn.

Ownership Cascade Waterfall across three states of the world Three horizontal stacked bars showing ownership percentages among five siblings and two surviving spouses, before and after each of two intestate deaths under California Probate Code section 6401(c)(2)(B) and section 240. Sibling 1 (60%) Sibling 2 (10%) Sibling 3 (10%) Sibling 4 (10%) Sibling 5 (10%) Wife 1 (spouse) Wife 2 (spouse) STATE 1 · Before either death The five siblings own as tenants in common in unequal shares. Total = 100%. 60% Sibling 1 10% 10% 10% 10% Sibling 1 dies intestate · Wife 1 survives · Cal. Prob. Code § 6401(c)(2)(B) STATE 2 · After Sibling 1 (60%) dies S1's 60% splits 50/50. Wife 1 takes 30%. The other 30% flows to the four surviving siblings by § 240 representation — 7.5% each. 30% Wife 1 17.5% Sib 2 (10+7.5) 17.5% Sib 3 17.5% Sib 4 17.5% Sib 5 Sibling 2 dies intestate · Wife 2 survives · same statute, same 50/50 rule STATE 3 · After Sibling 2 (17.5%) also dies S2's 17.5% splits 50/50. Wife 2 takes 8.75%. The other 8.75% flows to the three surviving siblings by § 240 — 2.92% each. 30% Wife 1 8.75% Wife 2 20.42% Sib 3 (10+7.5+2.92) 20.42% Sibling 4 20.42% Sibling 5 FINAL CHECK · 30 + 8.75 + 20.42 + 20.42 + 20.42 = 99.99 ≈ 100% Surviving siblings still hold just over 61% combined. The two wives hold a bit under 39%. No one has been disinherited. But no one holds a majority either.
Source: Cal. Prob. Code §§ 240, 6401(c)(2)(B), 6402(c). Percentages computed from the statute; rounded for display. Intestate, separate-property case; community-property claims could change individual shares but not the 50/50 rule.
So what?

This single picture ends the argument. No wife inherits 100%. Two wives together hold less than 40% of the house. Three living siblings still hold more than 60%. The family that vested this property equally among five children — and the California legislature that wrote § 6401(c)(2)(B) — both agreed: when a spouse inherits without children, the bloodline keeps half.

Everything else in this companion flows from these three bars.

Exhibit B · Chart 2 of 6

The 50/50 Rule, drawn twice.

One diagram per decedent. Top-down. The decedent's share splits exactly in half: half to the spouse, half to the surviving siblings by representation. This is not interpretation. This is the statute, traced with a pen.

The 50/50 statutory split applied to each of the two decedent siblings Two vertical flow diagrams. The left shows Sibling 1's 60% share splitting into 30% to Wife 1 and 30% to four surviving siblings at 7.5% each. The right shows Sibling 2's 17.5% share splitting into 8.75% to Wife 2 and 8.75% to three surviving siblings at approximately 2.92% each. Decedent: Sibling 1 60% share · intestate · survived by Wife 1 100% of Decedent's share 60% of house 50% 50% To surviving spouse 30% § 6401(c)(2)(B) Wife 1 To siblings by § 240 repn. 30% § 6402(c) · § 240 Sibling 2 +7.5% Sibling 3 +7.5% Sibling 4 +7.5% Sibling 5 +7.5% 30% ÷ 4 surviving siblings = 7.5% each, added to existing stake Decedent: Sibling 2 17.5% share (post-S1) · intestate · survived by Wife 2 100% of Decedent's share 17.5% of house 50% 50% To surviving spouse 8.75% § 6401(c)(2)(B) Wife 2 To siblings by § 240 repn. 8.75% § 6402(c) · § 240 Sibling 3 +2.92% Sibling 4 +2.92% Sibling 5 +2.92% 8.75% ÷ 3 surviving siblings ≈ 2.92% each, added to existing stake THE STATUTE · VERBATIM · CALIFORNIA ONLY "As to separate property, the intestate share of the surviving spouse is... one-half of the separate property if the decedent leaves... no issue but leaves a parent or parents or their issue or the issue of either of them." — Cal. Prob. Code § 6401(c)(2)(B) · effective 1985 · unchanged in operative text since
Source: Cal. Prob. Code §§ 240, 6401(c)(2)(B), 6402(c). Each decedent's share splits once under § 6401(c)(2)(B); the collateral half is distributed under § 6402(c) by § 240 per-capita-at-each-generation representation.
The Defining Insight

Notice that the diagram on the right is not a copy of the diagram on the left. The second death happens inside a world the first death already changed. Sibling 2 did not die owning 10%. He died owning 17.5% — the 10% he started with plus the 7.5% he inherited from Sibling 1. The statute does not care. It still splits the share in half. That is why the two bars at the bottom of Chart 1 are not equal — and why the arithmetic everyone's been doing in their heads has been wrong from day one.

Exhibit C · Chart 3 of 6

Which levee holds back which river?

Three states. Three statutes. Same factual pattern. Three completely different answers to the question "what does the surviving spouse inherit?" California is the outlier — and California is where the house sits.

Intestate spousal share under California, Hawaii, and the Uniform Probate Code Three side-by-side columns. California grants the surviving spouse 50% when siblings survive. Hawaii grants 100%. Approximately 30 Uniform Probate Code states grant 100%. Each column includes the governing statute and year. Same facts. Three states. Three answers. Decedent dies intestate · no children · no surviving parents · surviving spouse · surviving siblings CALIFORNIA Spouse receives 50/50 50% to spouse CAL. PROB. CODE § 6401(c)(2)(B) HAWAII Spouse receives 100 100% to spouse HAW. REV. STAT. § 560:2-102 (1996) UNIFORM PROBATE CODE ~30 STATES FOLLOW Spouse receives 100 100% to spouse UPC § 2-102 (rev. 1990) WHY THIS MATTERS The paralegal applied the wrong levee to this river. California kept the collateral-relatives rule when the UPC abandoned it in 1990. Hawaii rebuilt its levee. California did not.
Source: Cal. Prob. Code § 6401(c)(2)(B); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:2-102; Uniform Probate Code § 2-102 (rev. 1990). UPC-following state count is approximate; several UPC states have local amendments.
So what?

This chart is the cure for a specific kind of advisor error. An attorney or paralegal trained in a UPC state — or who graduated after 1990 and never memorized the California carve-out — will answer "100% to the spouse" almost automatically. That answer is correct in Hawaii. It is correct in most of the country. It is wrong in California, and it has been wrong in California since 1931.

We drew three pies so that nobody has to take our word for it. The statutes are right there. Any attorney can verify in sixty seconds.

Exhibit D · Chart 4 of 6

The roadmap — and the buyout nobody told you about.

A decision tree that starts with a spousal petition and ends, if needed, at a court-supervised sale. Buried in the middle is the single most powerful piece of leverage the surviving siblings have: a statutory right to buy the whole house at the appraised value.

Decision tree from spousal petition through probate to the Partition of Real Property Act buyout A vertical flowchart starting with each surviving spouse's section 13650 petition, moving through full probate, a decision point on whether cotenants agree, and if not, a Partition of Real Property Act path whose first step is a mandatory buyout opportunity for any non-petitioning cotenant at the court-appraised value. STEP 1 · IMMEDIATELY Each Surviving Spouse files a § 13650 Petition Spousal 50% confirmed outside probate Wife 1 → 30% · Wife 2 → 8.75% STEP 2 · NON-SPOUSAL RESIDUAL 50% Full Probate Required — Cal. Prob. Code § 7000 et seq. § 13150 unavailable (not primary residence); § 13100 unavailable (real property) Do all cotenants agree on disposition? YES EXIT RAMP · COOPERATION Post-probate private sale · or retain NO Partition of Real Property Act · CCP §§ 874.311 – 874.323 1 Court-Ordered Appraisal Independent licensed appraiser · fair market value at time of action 2 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL — BUYOUT AT APPRAISED VALUE Any non-petitioning cotenant (the siblings) may buy out the petitioning share within 45 days CCP § 874.317 · added by AB 2245 · effective Jan. 1, 2023 3 If no buyout taken: court-supervised open-market sale No forced-auction fire sale · listing agent · commercially reasonable terms ★ The single most powerful leverage in this case: surviving siblings can keep the house by matching the appraisal. ★
Source: Cal. Prob. Code §§ 13650, 7000 et seq.; Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 874.311–874.323 (Partition of Real Property Act, eff. Jan. 1, 2023, added by AB 2245). Timing windows per CCP § 874.317(b).
What changed in 2023

For decades, partition meant one thing: the court orders a sale and everyone watches the money go to the highest bidder. The 2023 Partition of Real Property Act added a stop along the way. Before the sale happens, any non-petitioning cotenant can buy out the petitioning cotenant at the court's own appraised value. Not the lowball threat number. Not the distressed-sale number. The appraised number. That single provision — CCP § 874.317 — flips the leverage in this case. A spouse who was counting on a forced sale to cash out her share now faces a world where the surviving siblings can simply write the check and keep the house.

Exhibit E · Chart 5 of 6

The Prop 19 trap — the tax bomb hiding in plain sight.

The house is one physical asset. After these transfers, it carries two different property-tax bases. Half the transfers are constitutionally excluded from reassessment. The other half trigger a full re-rack to current fair market value. Every year the family holds the house, the gap compounds.

Proposition 19 reassessment trigger map for the two decedent shares The house represented as a rectangle divided into three tax-status segments. 30% preserves original Prop 13 basis. 35% transferred interspousally is excluded from reassessment. 35% transferred sibling-to-sibling is reassessed to current fair market value under Proposition 19. The House · seven slices · two tax worlds R&T § 63 excludes interspousal transfers. Prop 19 (2021) repealed the § 63.1 sibling exclusion. Pre-existing basis · unchanged Spousal transfer · EXCLUDED from reassessment Sibling transfer · TRIGGERS reassessment THE HOUSE · 100% · $1,000,000 illustrative FMV 30% S3+S4+S5 originals Prop 13 basis preserved 35% Interspousal transfers EXCLUDED · R&T § 63 35% Sibling-to-sibling transfers REASSESSED to current FMV THE TRANSFER LEDGER · where each segment came from Unchanged (30%) • Sibling 3 original share — 10% • Sibling 4 original share — 10% • Sibling 5 original share — 10% Never transferred. Still carries the original Prop 13 assessed value from the date they first took title. Cal. Const. Art. XIII A Excluded (35%) • S1 → Wife 1 — 30% • S2 → Wife 2 — 5% Interspousal transfers are constitutionally excluded from reassessment. Basis carries over. Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 63 Triggered (35%) • S1 → S2/S3/S4/S5 — 30% • S2 → S3/S4/S5 — 5% Prop 19 (2021) repealed the sibling exclusion. Every sibling-received share re-racked to current FMV. Prop 19 · R&T § 63.1 repeal THE TAX BOMB · DIRECT-COST ESTIMATE On a $1M California home with a $300,000 Prop 13 base, 35% newly reassessed to current FMV means an additional assessed value of approximately $245,000, producing an additional annual property tax of roughly $2,700 — compounding for every year the family holds the house. Illustrative · actual numbers depend on current FMV, county assessment practice, and any Moore/Marsden adjustments.
Source: Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 63 (interspousal exclusion); Cal. Const. Art. XIII A § 2.1 (Proposition 19, eff. Feb. 16, 2021) repealing prior § 63.1 sibling exclusion. Dollar estimates illustrative at 1.1% combined ad valorem rate.
So what?

About 35% of this house just became tax-exposed. Every additional dollar of annual property tax compounds for every year the family holds the asset. A forced partition sale triggers a second round of reassessment — this time on the buyers' side. A buyout under CCP § 874.317, by contrast, is a single transfer that can be structured to minimize the reassessment footprint.

The tax story quietly reframes the whole negotiation. This is not "siblings versus wives." This is family versus tax reassessment. Cooperation protects the Prop 13 base. Litigation detonates it.

Exhibit F · Chart 6 of 6

What full probate actually costs.

California statutory probate fees are not negotiable. They are not a range. They are a schedule, written into the Probate Code, and they stack — the personal representative gets one fee and the attorney gets an identical second fee on top of it. Here is what that schedule produces at four different home values.

California statutory probate fees by home value under Probate Code section 10810 Horizontal stacked bar chart comparing statutory probate fees at four home-value levels: 500 thousand, 1 million, 2 million, and 3 million dollars. Each bar stacks the personal representative fee and the attorney fee. Totals range from 26,000 dollars at 500 thousand up to 86,000 dollars at 3 million. Statutory Fees · California Probate · per Cal. Prob. Code § 10810 4% of first $100K · 3% of next $100K · 2% of next $800K · 1% of next $9M · both representative & attorney get the same schedule Personal Representative fee Attorney fee (identical schedule — stacks) TOTAL STATUTORY FEES ($) $500,000 home Home value $13,000 $13,000 = $26,000 total 5.2% of home value, before extraordinary fees $1,000,000 home Home value $23,000 $23,000 = $46,000 total 4.6% of home value · the Client A fact pattern baseline $2,000,000 home Home value $33,000 $33,000 = $66,000 total 3.3% $3,000,000 home Home value $43,000 $43,000 = $86,000 2.9% "Extraordinary services" (litigation, tax returns, real estate transactions) add additional fees on top under § 10811.
Source: Cal. Prob. Code §§ 10810, 10811. The schedule is mandatory for both the personal representative's compensation and the attorney's compensation; the two stack. Extraordinary services fees under § 10811 are additional and not captured above.
The cost of getting it right the first time

The cost of getting it right the first time is dwarfed by the cost of getting it wrong. A $46,000 probate bill on a $1M home feels steep — until you compare it to a partition action fought to judgment, which routinely costs six figures in legal fees, triggers the Prop 19 reassessment we just drew in Chart 5, and converts a family asset into an auction lot. The statutory fee is the floor. The alternative is the ceiling.

So what?

Read Chart 4 and Chart 6 together. The roadmap is not expensive because probate is expensive. The roadmap is expensive because the family has to run it twice — once for each decedent — and it stacks two full fee schedules. That is the strongest possible argument for cooperation. Every dollar not spent fighting is a dollar that stays in the family's pocket. Every month of delay compounds the fees under § 10811.

A word on what this is and isn't This visual companion is research-assistance product, not legal advice. Percentages are computed from Cal. Prob. Code §§ 240, 6401, 6402 and rounded for display. Every chart should be read alongside the Legal Advisory Brief (Package L01) and verified by licensed California probate counsel before any deed, petition, or settlement agreement is signed. Do not sign anything yet.