Updated August 25, 2026. Quick answer: The probate overbid is described almost everywhere as ten percent. The statute is tiered: at least 10 percent more on the first $10,000 of the original bid and 5 percent more on everything above it. On a $600,000 accepted bid that is $630,500, not the $660,000 the flat version implies – a difference of $29,500. The same section adds two rules that are almost never quoted, and one section three pages earlier can switch the entire mechanism off before it starts.
The formula, as the statute writes it
Section 10311 sets the threshold a competing offer must clear at the confirmation hearing: “The offer is for an amount at least 10 percent more on the first ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of the original bid and 5 percent more on the amount of the original bid in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).” Two rates and a break point. On any bid above $10,000, the flat-ten-percent version overstates the requirement, and it overstates it more the larger the sale.
| Accepted bid | Statutory minimum overbid | What a flat 10% implies | How much the flat version overstates it |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | $105,500 | $110,000 | $4,500 |
| $250,000 | $263,000 | $275,000 | $12,000 |
| $500,000 | $525,500 | $550,000 | $24,500 |
| $600,000 | $630,500 | $660,000 | $29,500 |
| $750,000 | $788,000 | $825,000 | $37,000 |
| $1,000,000 | $1,050,500 | $1,100,000 | $49,500 |
| $1,500,000 | $1,575,500 | $1,650,000 | $74,500 |
Computed from the two rates in the statute: 10 percent on the first $10,000 of the original bid, 5 percent above it. The statute sets a minimum a competing offer must clear, not the amount that wins.
The right-hand column is the practical consequence. A bidder who prepares to the myth arrives with too much; a bidder told the myth by someone else may not arrive at all, having concluded the gap was unbridgeable. Both errors cost the estate the competition the statute was built to create.
Two rules in the same section that nobody quotes
The first is that the bid is measured commission-blind. Subdivision (e) says “the amount of the original bid and any higher offer shall be determined by the court without regard to any of the following” – and the list is the agent’s commission and any condition that part of the bid be paid to an agent. So an offer cannot be dressed up by rearranging who pays whom. The number the court compares is the number.
The second decides whether a higher offer is even looked at. If the sale returned for confirmation and the higher offer sit on different payment terms, “the court may not consider the higher offer unless the personal representative informs the court in person or by counsel prior to confirmation of sale that the higher offer is acceptable.” A cash overbid over a financed sale, or the reverse, is not automatically in play. It is in play if the personal representative says so, in court, before confirmation.
And the court is not obliged to take the winner: “The court may, in its discretion, decline to accept the offer that satisfies the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b); and, in such case, the court shall order a new sale.”
What sits underneath the bidding
Two conditions govern the sale that got to the hearing in the first place. The property “has been appraised within one year prior to the date of the confirmation hearing”, and no confirmation may happen below 90 percent of that appraised value. The appraisal is the floor and the clock on it is a year.
Then the court looks at the sale itself. Section 10310 has it “examine into the necessity for the sale or the advantage to the estate and the benefit to the interested persons in making the sale”. That is a substantive finding, not a formality – and it is the finding that disappears entirely on the other path.
When the bidding ends, section 10313 directs the outcome: “The court shall make an order confirming the sale to the person making the highest offer that satisfies the requirements of this article”.
And all of it can be switched off
This is the sentence to read before anything else on this page. Under full authority in the Independent Administration of Estates Act, section 10503 provides that “the requirements applicable to court confirmation of sales of real property (including, but not limited to, publication of notice of sale, court approval of agents’ and brokers’ commissions, sale at not less than 90 percent of appraised value, and court examination into the necessity for the sale, advantage to the estate and benefit to interested persons, and efforts of the personal representative to obtain the highest and best price for the property reasonably attainable), and the requirements applicable to court confirmation of sales of personal property, do not apply to the sale.”
Publication, court approval of the commission, the 90 percent floor, the court’s examination and the duty to obtain the highest and best price reasonably attainable: all named, all disapplied. Under limited authority the opposite holds, and a “personal representative who has obtained only limited authority to administer the estate under this part is required to obtain court supervision, in the manner provided in this code, for any of the following actions” – the first of which is the sale of real property.
So the first question about any probate sale is not what the overbid is. It is which authority the letters grant. What replaces the court’s supervision under full authority, and what a beneficiary can still do about it, is a notice, a deadline and a written objection.
What this page does not settle
This page sets out California’s confirmation and overbid statutes and the arithmetic they require. It is not advice on whether to bid, and it is not a guide to any county’s local practice.
Everything here is California’s statute. Other states confirm probate sales on their own terms and some do not hold overbid hearings at all; we read no other state’s confirmation statute this session.
The worked figures are arithmetic on the statutory formula, not quotes from any court. A judge’s own calculation controls, and the statute sets a minimum, not the number that wins.
We did not read the Judicial Council forms or any local rule. Counties add their own practice on top of this, including how and when a bid must be presented.
Nothing here tells you whether a given estate is being administered with full authority. That is on the letters and in the court file, and it is the first thing to check.
Sources
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10309(a)(1) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10309.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10310(a) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10310.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10311(a)(1) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10311.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10311(c) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10311.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10311(d) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10311.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10311(e) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10311.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10313(a) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10313.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10501(b)(1) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10501.
- Cal. Prob. Code § 10503 — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB§ionNum=10503.
Related: The Mail That Arrives After a Probate Filing · What an Estate Pays to Sell · what the proceeding itself costs · the same question in every other state.
General information drawn from the primary statutes and published company pages named above, not legal, tax or financial advice. Statutes are amended and company terms change; the figures here are what each source said on the date above, and the section or page is linked so you can check it.