Court Investigator's Review
Santa Barbara County - Judge Jed Beebe - 20260623 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Ursula Elisabeth Benham Tentative Ruling: Estate of Ursula Elisabeth Benham Case Number 22PR00317 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances are required.
The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: On April 3, 2026, Roberta Chavez filed a First Amended Petition for Final Distribution. On April 17, 2026, Alexandra Barbara Autuori filed objection to that amended petition, placing the matter at issue and requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)
The following procedural defects with the petition are also noted: Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-120). Despite previous probate notes to the contrary, petitioner consistently refuses to use the mandatory Judicial Counsel forms to send notice to parties in this case. This is sanctionable conduct. (CRC, Rule 2.30.)
Notice for this hearing still has not been sent on form DE-120, thus has not satisfied the requirement of Due Process. Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees on the mandated Judicial Council form DE-120, as well as on the Personal Representative (if not the petitioner) and special notice requestors. (Prob. Code, Sec.Sec. 11601 & 1220.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (Sec.1220.)
Rei mbursement requests should be rejected. The petitioner requests reimbursement of $39,339.05 at paragraph 12 of the petition, but those reimbursements appear to be the same claims that were adjudicated in the creditor's claim of Erik Benham that was finalized after evidentiary hearing. A supplement was filed on April 3, 2026, attempting to explain why the claims are similar, and justify the payment of those claims. The Supplement fails to adequately do so. Many of the charges on the itemized list attached to the petition are indistinguishable from claims by Erik Benham that have already been adjudicated.
Accounting discrepancies. The accounting still fails to comply with Probate Code section 1060, et seq. requirements for an accounting, and does not balance in the slightest. Credits do not equal Charges, nor are the supporting schedules meaningful or organized in a way to support the summary of account. "Furthermore, failure to provide proper accounting for entrusted funds is cause for discipline whether or not financial loss has ultimately occurred." (See
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of George Bradford Fisher Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of George Bradford Fisher Case Number 1230156
Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. No appearance is required. The next review hearing will be held on the same date of the next scheduled Accounting, June 7, 2027.
Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Johanna Maria Wolter Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Johanna Maria Wolter Case Number 21PR00340 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/22/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Report of Sale and Petition for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The following defects must be remedied before the sale may be held:
No prior Court Order. This Court must be petitioned for the power to sell the conservatee's personal or former residence before " any significant resources" are committed to the sale. (Prob. Code, Sec.2540(c).) There is no court order on file granting the conservator the authority to sell the subject property.
Missing allegations. The following allegations are required by Probate Code section 2540(b), but are missing from the petition: Conservator discussed the proposed sale with the conservatee. Conservatee supports sale (or is opposed). (Prob. Code, Sec. 2540(b).) Circumstances that necessitate the proposed sale, including whether the conservatee has the ability to live in the personal residence and why other alternatives, including, but not limited to, in-home care services, are not available.
Notice is Inadequate. Notice must conform to the same requirements in the provisions governing the sale of real property in decedent's estates. (Prob. Code, Sec. 2543(b).) This includes publication, posting notice by the court clerk, etc. (Prob. Code, Sec.Sec.10308(c); 1230.) The notice in this case was not posted by the clerk and the Proof of Service was not on the proper Judicial Council Form. Notice of at least 15 days is required to the conservator, conservatee, spouse of conservatee (if applicable), the buyer, and any party requesting special notice. (Prob. Code, Sec.Sec.1220(a)(2)(B), 10308(c), and 11601.) Proofs of Service must be filed using form GC-020, attaching form GC-020(C) to that notice.
Proposed Order (DE-260). A proposed order must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the petition. No such document was filed with the court.
Appraisal Older than Six Months. The conservatee's personal residence must be appraised less than six