DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PB-0033472·shasta·Probate·Probate
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

Estate of Billie Rainwater

Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
44
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 24, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherBillie Rainwater

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26PB-0033472 This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence. The Petition contains the following defects: 1. The will disposes of the decedent’s separate property and 1⁄2 community property. The decedent was married at the time of her death. The Petition states that Petitioner and the estate of the post-deceased spouse are each entitled to 50% of the real property. The Inventory and Appraisal fails to identify whether the real property was community or separate property in compliance with Probate Code Section 8850(c). As a result, the Court is unable to determine whether the interest of each Petitioner in item 13 is accurate.

2. The Petition is incomplete as to Attachment 11.

3. Attachment 14 fails to identify all persons check in item 9 and all persons designated in the will to receive any property. Additionally, Attachment 14 fails to identify the personal representative of the estate of the post-deceased spouse.

Due to the defects, the Court is unable to determine whether proper notice has been provided. The matter is continued to Monday, August 24, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 for further proceedings on the Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence. Petitioner is required to file an amended Petition to address the issues raised above. Petitioner is also required to file and serve a new Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date, along with a copy of the amended Petition, on all parties entitled to notice. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

ESTATE OF VALERIE SCHMIDT

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share