Estate of Melvin Samuel Kalish

two reasons. First, you cannot skirt the rules of probate distribution just because the property will eventually be distributed a different way by the trust. [1] Thus, the court must order distribution of whatever property the estate actually holds according to the terms of Decedent's Last Will and Testament, which devises the entire estate to the trust.

Second, the sale of estate property removes that property from the corpus of the estate res, thus making it legally impossible for the Court to order that same property distributed to the heirs or, in this case, the devisee (which is the trust). Thus, this Court cannot make an order for final distribution that transfers title of the subject property to the trust (or its beneficiaries), because the estate no longer holds title to the subject property.

There is also one further issue regarding the conflicting allegations in the petition for final distribution that the real property was sold, but the "the estate has no liquid assets." How is that possible? If the property was sold, the consideration for the property must have been money. Where is the money? If the entirety of the purchase price of the subject property was used to repay the reverse mortgage on the real property, then the outcome of that sale was 1) the subject real property was transferred from the estate to the buyer; and 2) the estate is a no-asset estate not subject to final distribution pursuant to Probate Code section 12251.

Therefore, the Court should grant the petition as to the request to terminate the administration of the estate for no assets on hand, but deny the petition as to the request to confirm sale of the property. If petitioner desires court confirmation of sale, Petitioner must file a proper request using the procedures outlined in the Probate Code at 10300 et seq., and Judicial Council form DE-260.

[1] A party cannot avoid probating a deceased person's estate just because the heirs would be the same as those in the deceased person's trust. (Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 744. ["Accordingly, it would be premature for the court to distribute Ralph's personal estate at this time. (See Estate of Hart (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 271, 280-281, 311 P.2d 605 [where title vests subject to the administration of the estate, the right to possession is deferred until the distribution of the estate and is contingent upon the will not being set aside by a contest after probate].)

This is because title vests at date of death in the person to whom it is devised or inherited. (In re Estate of Meyer (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 799, 810 ["The estate vests in the heir eo instante upon the death of the ancestor; and no act of his is required to perfect title. The estate is cast on the heir by operation of law without regard to his wishes or election. No assent or acceptance is necessary. He cannot, by any act, cause the estate to remain in the ancestor, for the latter is incapable of holding it after his death.

He cannot, by any renunciation or disclaimer, prevent the passage of title to himself."].) Thus, a party cannot "skip" probate.

Tentative Ruling: Estate of Melvin Samuel Kalish Tentative Ruling: Estate of Melvin Samuel Kalish Case Number

Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/15/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.

Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Luis Mauricio Rivera Hernandez