Petition for Appointment of Temporary Conservator
estate administration]; and Estate of Hilton (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 890, 912-16 [citing In re Walker's Estate (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 792, 795] for the proposition that probate courts can disallow all extraordinary fees claims if they find statutory compensation sufficient, keeping in mind the legislature's policy of subsidizing fees in more complicated estates with those easily earned in less complicated estate ["The Legislature merely determined, in substance, that any undercompensation involved in handling small estates would be equitably adjusted in the long run by overcompensation in handling larger estates."].)
As a result of the above authority, and because the efforts spent on remedying waste to the estate was not legal in nature, but clerical at best, it is recommended the Court deny the fees associated with the repairs of the home to ready it for sale, and only approve the fees expended in the preparation of the unlawful detainer.
Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305
Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Jean Marie Stotts Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Jean Marie Stotts Case Number
Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/24/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Appointment of Temporary Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required.
The following must be submitted: Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing. There is no Proof of Service on file. Notice of the hearing shall be served five days prior to the hearing on the proposed conservatee's spouse, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, and brothers and sisters (named in the Petition for Appointment of Conservator at P. 11). [Prob. C. Sec. 2250(e)(2)] The Code does not specify the method of service, but service by mail is presumably sufficient.
Further Briefing. Petitioner must file a Memorandum of Points and Authority showing why the Court has authority to grant a conservatorship over the estate under the current circumstances of this case. The memorandum must include discussion of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Probate Code, especially whether this Court has authority to pierce the protections of the conservatee's spouse outlined in sections 3012 and 3051, and whether a conservatorship over the estate can be justified in this case instead of using the procedures outlined in Article 3, Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 4 (Sec.Sec.3080 et seq.). Petitioner should at least reference, if not discuss the principles enshrined in, and the history of Article 3 outlined in Conservatorship of Bower (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 495, and how those principles and that history should be considered in the Court's decision in this case.
Tentative Ruling: Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC vs Jose Rojas Salazar Tentative Ruling: Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC vs Jose Rojas Salazar Case Number
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?”