_Estate of Franco_ 01/30/2023_,_ CA 1/3: A165840 [https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A165840.PDF](https://bbbfamilylaw.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2ca9012d5d8991379e5fb87e0&id=be1d6f1ca5&e=1dd931c279 "https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.ca.gov%2Fopinions%2Fdocuments%2FA165840.PDF&data=05%7C01%7CAndrew%40bickfordlaw.com%7C6bc985e0764e4f79971208db0813910b%7C8927de5ae56c47aeb993edeba3bae9f7%7C1%7C0%7C638112652826603183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qa0Esb1HLYDlPklUP6D1AOLivcBkAxjfgKmJM2QvVaU%3D&reserved=0") First, the Court of Appeal concluded that the California Supreme Court’s decision in _Estate of Cornelious_ (1984) 35 Cal.3d 461 remained good law and was not subsequently abrogated by the legislature. **To wit, “a child of a marriage under the Family Code section 7540 marital presumption is barred from proving a parent-child relationship existed with a deceased third person for purposes of inheritance under intestate succession.”** Next, it found that the trial court erred because **prior to applying the Family Code section 7540 marital presumption, the trial court was required to find that the relevant individuals “cohabited as husband and wife” at the time of the child’s “conception and birth.”**