原创教学试写，非官方答案，也非官方精选考生答案。供学习讨论，不代表加州律师协会立场。 Original NewG teaching answer; not an official answer or a selected candidate answer.
English — Original Teaching Answer
Harry's will and Wilma's omitted-spouse rights
Harry's will remains valid in California because it was valid under the law of his domicile when executed. His later marriage and move do not invalidate the entire instrument. Sis remains the beneficiary, but her gift is subject to Wilma's ownership and omitted-spouse rights.
A spouse whom the decedent married after executing all testamentary instruments ordinarily receives protection if those instruments make no provision for her. Harry executed his only will two years before marrying Wilma and made no subsequent testamentary instrument. Wilma is therefore an omitted spouse. She receives the decedent's share of community and qualifying quasi-community property, together with a share of his separate property equal to her intestate share, but never exceeding one-half of that separate-property estate.
Sis might argue that Harry deliberately favored her or already provided for Wilma through the California house. However, an intentional omission must appear from the testamentary instruments. A will benefiting Sis before the marriage does not itself express an intention to disinherit a future spouse. An outside transfer defeats protection only when Harry intended it to substitute for a testamentary provision. Joint ownership of the house alone does not establish that intent. No effective waiver appears either. Wilma accordingly receives omitted-spouse protection on the stated facts.
The California house
Marital earnings ordinarily are community property when earned while domiciled in California. Earnings acquired while domiciled elsewhere do not automatically become ordinary community property merely because the spouses move. At death, however, California treats qualifying property acquired with such earnings as quasi-community property when it would have been community property if acquired while domiciled here. The probate definition covers personal property wherever situated and California real property, including qualifying replacement property acquired in exchange for the original asset. It does not cover real estate still situated outside California.
The State X house was purchased with Harry and Wilma's combined marital earnings. Those funds would ordinarily have been community property had they been domiciled in California. Although the house was titled solely to Wilma, the facts do not establish a separate-property gift or other agreement defeating the marital-source analysis. After moving, the spouses sold it and used all proceeds to purchase California real estate. The replacement house therefore qualifies for quasi-community-property treatment.
The title in both names also shows that Wilma already possesses ownership rights. It does not, without more, establish a survivorship arrangement. Thus, her recovery need not depend on an unstated joint tenancy. She retains her existing interest, receives the surviving spouse's ownership portion of Harry's qualifying quasi-community property at his death, and inherits his remaining portion as an omitted spouse. These distinct rights together leave Wilma with the entire house. Sis receives none of Harry's interest in it.
The stated $600,000 is the value of Harry's ownership rights, not necessarily the value of the whole house. It should not simply be divided as though it represented both spouses' total interests. Whatever Wilma already owns is outside Harry's testamentary disposition; the qualifying interest Harry owned ultimately passes to her through the combined ownership and inheritance rules. If the joint acquisition instead establishes ordinary community property, the same final allocation follows: Wilma keeps her share and takes Harry's share as an omitted spouse.
The State X farm
The farm presents a different result despite its marital source. It remained real property in State X. California's death-related quasi-community-property definition excludes such out-of-state realty, unlike the broader property rules applicable on dissolution. The farm consequently cannot receive the California house's quasi-community treatment merely because both were purchased with marital earnings.
Harry held the farm in his own name in a noncommunity-property state. For the requested California probate analysis, it is his separate-property asset, worth $400,000. Wilma does not first receive an automatic quasi-community ownership half. Instead, she claims an omitted-spouse share of Harry's separate-property estate. The question expressly supplies probate jurisdiction over all assets, so the farm's location is relevant to classification, not a reason to disregard the requested allocation.
Where a decedent leaves no descendants but leaves a sibling, the surviving spouse's intestate share of separate property is one-half. Harry and Wilma had no children, and Sis survived him. The omitted-spouse ceiling is also one-half. Wilma therefore receives a one-half share of the farm, worth $200,000, and Sis receives the other half, worth $200,000, under the will, subject to estate administration.
The savings account
Property received by inheritance is separate property even when received during marriage. Harry inherited $10,000 from his aunt and kept it in an account in his own name. Nothing indicates commingling, a gift to the marital community, or an agreement changing its character. The account remains separate property.
Wilma's one-half omitted-spouse share gives her $5,000; Sis takes the remaining $5,000 under the will. Neither the marriage nor the absence of children gives Wilma all separate property when a sibling survives. Accordingly, Wilma obtains the entire California house, half the farm, and $5,000 from the account. Sis obtains half the farm and $5,000, but no California-house interest.
（英文约 843 words）
中文参考译文
Harry 的遗嘱与 Wilma 的遗漏配偶权利
Harry 的遗嘱在订立时符合其住所地法律，因此在加州仍然有效。之后结婚并搬到加州，不会使整份遗嘱失效。Sis 仍是遗嘱受益人，但她取得财产须受 Wilma 已有的所有权及遗漏配偶权利限制。
如果被继承人在订立全部遗嘱文书之后结婚，而这些文书没有为配偶作出财产安排，该配偶通常可以获得遗漏配偶保护。Harry 在与 Wilma 结婚前两年订立了唯一的遗嘱，此后没有订立其他遗嘱文书，因此 Wilma 是遗漏配偶。她可以取得被继承人在共同财产及符合条件的准共同财产中的份额，并从其个人财产中取得相当于法定继承份额的权益，但个人财产部分最多不得超过该类遗产的一半。
Sis 可能主张，Harry 有意优先照顾她，或者已经通过加州房屋为 Wilma 作出安排。但是，故意遗漏配偶的意图必须从遗嘱文书本身体现出来。婚前将遗产留给 Sis 的遗嘱，本身不等于表达了剥夺未来配偶继承权的意图。遗嘱以外的财产转让，只有在 Harry 有意用该转让替代遗嘱安排时，才能排除遗漏配偶保护。仅仅共同持有房屋，并不足以证明这种替代意图。题目也没有有效放弃权利的约定。因此，依已知事实，Wilma 可以获得遗漏配偶保护。
加州房屋
夫妻以加州为住所期间取得的婚内劳动收入，通常属于共同财产。以其他州为住所期间取得的收入，不会仅因夫妻搬到加州，就自动变为普通的共同财产。不过，在死亡继承时，如果某项财产在取得时假设夫妻以加州为住所就应当属于共同财产，加州会对符合条件的财产适用准共同财产规则。此处的范围包括不论位于何处的动产，以及位于加州的不动产，也包括以原有财产交换取得的合格替代财产；仍位于加州以外的不动产则不在这一范围内。
X 州房屋是用 Harry 和 Wilma 的婚内共同收入购买的。如果他们当时以加州为住所，这些资金通常应属于共同财产。虽然房屋只登记在 Wilma 名下，但题目没有表明存在足以排除婚内资金来源分析的个人财产赠与或其他约定。搬到加州之后，两人出售原房屋，并将全部所得用于购买加州房屋。因此，替代房屋符合准共同财产的处理条件。
新房登记在双方名下，也表明 Wilma 已经拥有一定的所有权。但仅凭双方姓名，不能进一步认定存在生存者取得全部财产的安排。因此，她取得房屋不需要依赖题目没有说明的生存者权利式联合共有。Wilma 保留已有权益，并在 Harry 死亡时取得其合格准共同财产中属于生存配偶的所有权部分，再以遗漏配偶身份继承 Harry 剩余的部分。这几项不同权利合并后，使 Wilma 取得整栋房屋。Sis 不取得 Harry 在房屋中的任何权益。
题目所述 600,000 美元，是 Harry 所有权权益的价值，未必是整栋房屋的价值。不能直接把这个金额当作夫妻双方权益的总价值再作分割。Wilma 原本拥有的权益不属于 Harry 可以通过遗嘱处分的财产；Harry 持有的合格权益，最终通过上述所有权和继承规则归 Wilma。如果共同购房足以认定房屋属于普通共同财产，最终分配也相同：Wilma 保留自己的份额，并以遗漏配偶身份取得 Harry 的份额。
X 州农场
农场虽然也来自婚内收入，结论却不同。它始终是位于 X 州的不动产。加州死亡继承中的准共同财产定义不包括这种州外不动产，这与离婚时适用的较广财产规则不同。因此，不能仅因农场和房屋都用婚内收入购买，就把加州房屋的准共同财产处理方式直接套用到农场上。
农场位于非共同财产州，并登记在 Harry 一人名下。就题目要求的加州遗产分配分析而言，它是 Harry 的个人财产，价值 400,000 美元。Wilma 不能先自动取得准共同财产所有权中的一半，而应当从 Harry 的个人财产遗产中主张遗漏配偶份额。题目明确赋予遗产法院对全部资产的管辖权，所以农场所在地影响的是财产分类，不是回避分配问题的理由。
被继承人没有后代，但有兄弟姐妹存活时，生存配偶对个人财产的法定继承份额为一半。Harry 和 Wilma 都没有子女，而 Sis 在 Harry 去世后仍存活。遗漏配偶个人财产份额的上限也是一半。因此，Wilma 取得农场一半的权益，价值 200,000 美元；Sis 根据遗嘱取得另一半，价值同为 200,000 美元，具体分配仍须经过遗产管理程序。
储蓄账户
继承所得属于个人财产，即使是在婚姻期间取得也如此。Harry 从姨妈处继承了 10,000 美元，并将其保存在自己名下的账户中。题目没有资金混同、赠与夫妻共同财产体系或者改变财产性质的约定。因此，账户仍属于 Harry 的个人财产。
Wilma 作为遗漏配偶取得一半，即 5,000 美元；Sis 根据遗嘱取得其余 5,000 美元。在有兄弟姐妹存活时，结婚以及没有子女，都不意味着 Wilma 可以取得全部个人财产。最终，Wilma 获得整栋加州房屋、农场的一半以及账户中的 5,000 美元；Sis 获得农场的一半和 5,000 美元，但不取得加州房屋的权益。