California’s slayer statute, set out in Probate Code Sections 250 through 259, bars anyone who feloniously and intentionally kills another person from inheriting from that victim or receiving any other financial benefit tied to their death. The killer is treated as if they died before the victim, which removes them from wills, trusts, intestate succession, joint tenancy survivorship, life insurance payouts, retirement and payable-on-death accounts, and community property interests.
What the Killer Loses
Section 250 strips the killer of every avenue by which the victim’s assets might have reached them. That includes gifts under the victim’s will or trust, an intestate share when there is no will, quasi-community property, and non-probate transfers like payable-on-death accounts. It also voids any nomination of the killer as executor, trustee, guardian, or conservator under the victim’s estate plan.
The reach is deliberately broad. A killer named as beneficiary of a life insurance policy, bond, or similar contract collects nothing under Section 252; the proceeds pass to the contingent beneficiary, or to the victim’s estate if none is named. A killer who held property with the victim in joint tenancy loses the right of survivorship under Section 251. The joint tenancy is severed, the killer keeps only their own share, and the victim’s share passes through the victim’s estate.
What “Feloniously and Intentionally” Means
Both elements have to be present for the statute to apply. A killing that is accidental, negligent, or legally justified does not trigger it, however tragic the death. Involuntary manslaughter, for example, is unlawful but lacks the intent element. A killing in lawful self-defense is not a felony at all. In either situation, the survivor’s inheritance rights are unaffected.
Mental incapacity can also defeat the intent element. Someone who could not form the specific intent the statute requires — a person in a severe psychotic episode unable to distinguish reality from delusion, for instance — may fall outside its reach. Courts decide capacity case by case, and a diagnosis alone is not enough.
You Do Not Need a Criminal Conviction
There are two ways slayer status gets established. A final criminal conviction for a felonious and intentional killing is conclusive; once it exists, the probate court asks no further questions.
The second path matters more often. Even with no criminal conviction, the probate court can independently decide whether the killing was felonious and intentional. This is a civil proceeding, and the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence: the party challenging the inheritance only has to show it is more likely than not that the killing was intentional and unlawful. That is a far lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal court.
The civil pathway exists because criminal cases sometimes end in acquittal on procedural grounds, plea bargains to lesser charges, or no prosecution at all when the killer has fled or died. Without a civil route, the statute would collapse in exactly the cases where it is needed most. The person seeking to block the inheritance carries the burden of proving the killing qualifies.
The flip side matters too. An accusation alone does not disqualify a beneficiary. Until a court actually finds the killing was felonious and intentional, the accused beneficiary keeps their presumptive rights. That safeguard is important in ambiguous deaths that could have been suicide, accident, or homicide.
Non-Probate Assets Are Not Safe Ground
People often assume that assets passing outside probate — life insurance proceeds, joint accounts, transfer-on-death designations — sit beyond the reach of inheritance rules. They do not, at least not here. Section 252 catches life insurance, bonds, and other contractual beneficiary arrangements. Section 251 catches joint tenancies and multi-party financial accounts with survivorship rights. Section 250 catches non-probate transfers more generally. A killer named on any of these instruments takes nothing, and the assets pass as if the killer had predeceased the victim.
Where the Forfeited Property Goes
Once the killer is treated as predeceased, the victim’s assets pass to whoever comes next. One detail catches many families off guard: California’s anti-lapse statute, Probate Code Section 21110, does not apply to property forfeited under the slayer rule. The anti-lapse rule normally redirects a deceased beneficiary’s share to that beneficiary’s own descendants. Section 250 blocks that redirect for slayers.
The practical effect depends on the asset. Under a will, a gift to the disqualified beneficiary usually falls into the residuary estate or passes to any alternate beneficiary named in the will; without a residuary clause, it can pass by intestate succession. For assets passing without a will, ordinary intestate rules apply with the killer removed from the chain. The killer’s children can still inherit directly from the victim if they would have been in line independently, but they cannot step into the killer’s place to claim what the killer forfeited under the will.
Spousal and Community Property
Because California is a community property state, the statute’s treatment of spouses carries particular weight. Section 250 specifically covers quasi-community property, meaning property acquired by either spouse while living outside California that would have been community property if acquired here. A surviving spouse who kills the other loses any right to the decedent’s quasi-community property that would otherwise transfer under Probate Code Sections 101 or 102. The same logic reaches ordinary community property: the killing spouse loses the survivorship interest, and the victim’s share moves through the victim’s estate.
A Related Rule for Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse
The slayer statute is not the only disqualification in the Probate Code. Section 259 can bar a person found liable for physical abuse, neglect, or financial abuse of a dependent adult or elder from inheriting from that person’s estate. The standard of proof and procedural requirements are not identical to the slayer rule, and Section 259 does not require a killing. It operates on the same underlying principle: someone who harmed the decedent should not profit from the decedent’s death.