Original sample response
1. The will remains relevant, but Wilma is an omitted spouse
California recognizes a written will executed in compliance with the applicable law at execution, including the law of the testator's domicile. The question expressly states that Harry's State X will was valid. Moving to California and marrying later do not simply invalidate it. Sis is therefore the testamentary beneficiary, subject to Wilma's ownership rights and statutory protections.
Under Probate Code section 21610, a spouse whom the decedent married after executing all testamentary instruments generally receives the decedent's half of community and quasi-community property, plus an intestate-equivalent separate-property share capped at half the separate estate. Harry executed his only will before marriage. There is no stated intentional omission of Wilma in the instrument, waiver, or substitute transfer intended to satisfy her testamentary share. The exceptions in section 21611 are not established merely because Harry never changed his will.
2. California house: source and location support quasi-community treatment
Earnings acquired during marriage while domiciled in California would generally be community property. Here the original marital earnings were acquired while domiciled in State X. For death-time probate classification, section 66 includes California real property obtained in exchange for property that would have been community property if acquired while domiciled here. The California house was bought entirely with proceeds of the State X marital home. That tracing supports quasi-community classification despite the original home's title being solely in Wilma's name.
Section 101 ordinarily allocates half of the decedent's quasi-community property to the survivor and half to the decedent. Section 21610(b) then protects an omitted spouse in the decedent's remaining half. On that analysis, Wilma receives the quasi-community interests passing at death and Sis receives none of that property. The fact that the new title names both spouses should also prompt examination of the actual deed. Names alone do not establish a right of survivorship. If the deed created a valid survivorship arrangement, that provides a separate route to Wilma's ownership rather than an excuse to skip classification.
3. State X farm: do not import the divorce definition into probate
The farm also came from marital earnings, but remains out-of-state real property. Probate Code section 66 expressly covers personal property wherever located and real property situated in California. It does not automatically bring the retained State X farm within the probate quasi-community definition. The broader family-law treatment used at dissolution should not be mechanically applied to death.
The question directs California law and gives the probate court jurisdiction over all Harry's assets. Jurisdiction alone does not erase section 66's geographical limit or make the farm California real estate. Under a California-law distribution of Harry's farm interest as separate property, Wilma receives the omitted-spouse separate-property share and Sis takes the balance under the will. Because Harry leaves no descendants but does leave a sister, the intestate-equivalent share is half under section 6401(c)(2)(B), also within section 21610's half-estate cap. Treating the stated $400,000 as Harry's distributable farm interest produces $200,000 for each.
In actual multistate administration, situs law and the precise ownership interests must also be determined. The exam's jurisdiction and California-law instructions permit the stated analysis; they do not justify assuming facts about State X's elective-share or title law.
4. Savings: inherited property remains separate
Property received by inheritance during marriage is separate property. Harry received the $10,000 from his aunt and kept it in his own savings account. No commingling, gift to the marital community, or effective transmutation is stated. Wilma therefore receives $5,000 as an omitted spouse and Sis receives the other $5,000 under the valid will.
Conclusion
Wilma takes the California-house interests protected by quasi-community and omitted-spouse rules, subject to the deed and the stated valuation referring to Harry's actual interest. On the California-law treatment explained above, Wilma and Sis divide Harry's $400,000 farm interest equally and each receives $5,000 from the separate savings. Keep ownership classification distinct from inheritance: the will controls only what remains available for testamentary disposition after Wilma's rights are applied.