DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PR0001547·marin·Probate·Probate
Hearing about 2 months agoMixed

IN THE MATTER OF MARY JOHN MICHAEL PITMAN

Petition to Revoke Probate of Purported Lost Will of John Michael Pitman; Petition for Order Granting Authorized Access to Review a Confidential File

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2026
Department
C
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerElizabeth Brooks
PetitionerWilliam Bruce Pitman

Ruling

PR0001547 IN THE MATTER OF MARY JOHN MICHAEL PITMAN

1. Petition to Revoke Probate of Purported Lost Will of John Michael Pitman, filed by Elizabeth Brooks on 4/17/26.

2. Petition for Order Granting Authorized Access to Review a Confidential File, filed by William Bruce Pitman on 4/29/26.

Ruling. After consideration of the filed pleadings, the Court finds that William Bruce Pitman failed to provide proper notice to Elizabeth Brooks of his Petition to Administer the Estate of John Michael Pitman filed on November 17, 2025. Consequently, The Petition to Revoke Probate of Purported Lost Will of John Michael Pitman filed by Elizabeth Brooks on April 17, 2026, is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

The Court’s December 18, 2025, Order Appointing Administrator with Will Annexed Authorizing Independent Administration of Estate with Full Authority is vacated. The letters of administration

PLEASE NOTE: Probate cases that are designated as confidential by California law will not be posted online. For tentative rulings in those matters, please contact the judicial secretary at (415) 444- 7260. Page 3 | 13

issued in favor of William Bruce Pitman on January 2, 2026, are vacated. All other requests in said petition are denied. Counsel for Elizabeth Brooks is ordered to submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling by no later than July 23, 2026.

With respect to the Petition for Order Granting Authorized Access to Review a Confidential File, there is no signed Proof of Service in the file and it does not appear that parties to the action in PRO41567 received notice of this Petition, or in the alternative that a declaration of due diligence was filed explaining why such individual should not be served. This Petition is denied.

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