1. The operative instruments and Wendy's failed residue
The will and codicil are expressly valid, so ordinary execution defects need not be invented. A codicil republishes the will as modified, with the 2006 testamentary plan adding Bob's $10,000 gift while retaining the other provisions. The relevant later-family analysis considers the effective instruments, not merely the original 2001 date in isolation.
Wendy died in 2003. The residuary gift to her expressly depends on her surviving Ted, and she did not. The references to a beloved wife of twenty years identify Wendy rather than automatically substitute a future wife for her. Nell therefore does not receive that residue simply because she is Ted's spouse when he dies.
California's anti-lapse protection does not rescue this expressly survival-conditioned devise on the supplied facts. Nor does Ted's repetition of the remaining terms in 2006 bring the deceased Wendy back into existence. With no alternate residuary beneficiary or other gift covering the remainder, that property is undisposed of by the instruments and is subject to the governing succession and omitted-family rules.
2. Ann, Bob, and the employees have valid gifts
Ann is given $10,000 of separate property. She is named and provided for, and no fact defeats the gift. Bob was adopted after the original will but expressly received $10,000 through the valid 2006 codicil. An adopted child ordinarily has the relevant status of a child, but he is not an omitted child entitled to ignore that later express provision. Both dollar gifts initially stand, subject to any necessary statutory apportionment.
Each person employed by START at Ted's death receives $2,000. The will deliberately chooses the death-date class, not the employees present in 2001. All ten current employees therefore qualify, although none worked there when the original will was executed. The company's ordinary employment decisions have significance independent of selecting testamentary recipients, and using that external fact to identify the class does not itself invalidate the provision. The class gift totals $20,000.
The identified separate-property gifts thus total $40,000: $10,000 to Ann, $10,000 to Bob, and ten gifts of $2,000. The original wording's sequence does not require making a debt or estate-tax calculation, because the stated $90,000 separate-property value already is after debts, taxes, and expenses.
3. Nell as an omitted spouse
Ted married Nell in 2011, after the last testamentary instrument in 2006, and the instruments do not provide for her. Under Probate Code section 21610, a qualifying omitted spouse ordinarily receives the decedent's share of community and quasi-community property and the specified intestate measure from separate property, subject to statutory limits and exceptions.
No intentional omission of Nell appears in these instruments. A gift to a specifically identified deceased former wife is not itself a written intention to disinherit an as-yet-unmarried spouse. No waiver or intentional substitute transfer outside the estate is described. Those exceptions should be checked, not presumed. Nell therefore qualifies for the omitted-spouse protection.
Ted leaves three children: Ann, Bob, and Carol. Under section 6401, a surviving spouse's intestate separate-property share with more than one child is one-third. Nell's separate-property measure therefore is one-third of $90,000, or $30,000, which is below the statutory one-half ceiling for this purpose. She also receives Ted's $100,000 community-property share under the omitted-spouse rule. Her own existing half of the marital community is outside Ted's stated $100,000 share and outside the estate being distributed here. It should not be counted again as part of her inheritance from him.
4. Carol as an omitted child
Carol was born in 2012, after both effective testamentary instruments, and receives no provision. Under section 21620 she ordinarily is entitled to the value of her intestate share unless an exception applies. The instruments show no intention to omit this later-born child, no substitute transfer is supplied, and substantially all the estate was not left to Carol's other parent, Nell. Wendy was not Carol's parent, and her failed gift does not satisfy that exception.
If Ted died intestate, Nell would take his community share, so the children would receive none of that $100,000. From the separate property, Nell would take one-third, leaving two-thirds divided equally among three living children. Each child's measure is therefore two-ninths of $90,000, or $20,000. Carol's omitted-child entitlement is $20,000, not one-third of the entire $190,000 estate or an automatic match to the $10,000 gifts selected for the older children.
Ann and Bob are not entitled to omitted-child shares merely because their explicit gifts are smaller than an intestate measure. Their treatment comes from the valid gifts and any actual undisposed property left after the statutory rights are satisfied. The analysis must avoid awarding them a second hypothetical intestate distribution without first determining what remains.
5. Funding the statutory shares and final amounts
Sections 21612 and 21623 ordinarily satisfy omitted-spouse and omitted-child shares first from property not disposed of by the effective testamentary instruments. Only if that is insufficient is necessary contribution taken proportionately from beneficiaries, subject to applicable exceptions reflecting testamentary intent.
After the $40,000 valid separate-property dollar gifts, $50,000 of separate residue remains. Wendy's survival-conditioned gift failed, so that $50,000 is available as undisposed property. Nell's $30,000 and Carol's $20,000 separate-property entitlements exactly exhaust it. There is consequently no need to reduce Ann's, Bob's, or the employees' dollar gifts on these figures. Ted's $100,000 community share likewise is not effectively disposed of to a surviving Wendy and passes to Nell under her statutory protection.
This avoids a misleading two-stage calculation that first distributes all lapsed residue intestate to every heir and then awards Nell and Carol their full omitted shares again. The statutory funding rules govern the available property, and the same dollars cannot be distributed twice. The designation of the gifts as separate-property gifts is respected because enough separate property remains after the protected shares.
The final distribution of Ted's stated net estate is therefore $130,000 to Nell, consisting of his $100,000 community share and $30,000 separate property; $20,000 separate property to Carol; $10,000 separate property each to Ann and Bob; and $2,000 separate property to each of the ten START employees. The total is $190,000, matching Ted's net estate. Nell also retains her own community half, but that separate ownership is not an additional dollar gift from the estate. These results assume the supplied figures and absence of a statutory exception or other beneficiary transfer, rather than inventing assets, waivers, or a surviving residuary alternate.