A corrected Second Account and Report was filed on August 21, 2025, and on the Summary of Account shows a total estate value of $617,480.10. The property on hand here shows $313,098.09, a difference of $304,382.01. Supplement must be submitted explaining the discrepancy, or the Petition must be amended.

Discrepancy no. 2 - Schedule C "living expenses" category is not segregated into proper categories (i.e. food, clothing, entertainment, gas, medicine, toiletries, etc) then listed in chronological order. (See Fiduciary Accounting Handbook (Cont. Ed. Of the Bar 2022) Sec.8.8 ["As with receipts, disbursements should be listed categorically, then chronologically within each category."].) Supplement must be submitted categorizing purchases and subtotaling categories for Disbursements schedule.

Discrepancy no. 3 - Transfers between guardian and ward. The guardian made several cash transfers to the ward, and also paid herself $18,150 over the accounting period via a series of transfers from the ward's accounts to her own account. According to the Court order filed on January 13, 2025, the guardian was only authorized to pay herself $1,500 per month out of the guardianship account "as an allowance for the care of the minor, Shea Davis." (Ord. of 1 st Accnt., filed Jan. 13, 2025, at p. 2.)

These funds were not only to pay the guardian for her services, but were to aid the guardian's care of the minor. While the guardian stayed within budget as far as the transfers are concerned, the guardian does not appear to have used solely that money to provide for the ward, because the guardian allowed the ward to spend an additional $17,011.04, a monthly average of $1,417.58, during the same period on "living expenses" that amount to excessive eating out and shopping. This is 3.5 times the amount recommended under the "liberal food plan" by the FDA. (See https://www.fna.usda.gov/research/cnpp/usda-food-plans/cost-food-monthly-reports; [last accessed July 21, 2026].)

Such spending does not appear to be in the best interests of the wards, and is a breach of fiduciary duty by the guardian. The guardian was warned at multiple hearings that this behavior would result in surcharge. It is recommended the Court surcharge the Guardian at least $17,011.04.

Tentative Ruling: Matter of Olivia Lopez Tentative Ruling: Matter of Olivia Lopez Case Number

Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Mon, 07/13/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings OSC re: Sanctions Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required, including the minor. (CRC 7.952.)

There is no Review of Acknowledgement & Receipt on file. Judicial Council form MC-356 must be completed and signed by a representative of the financial institution, attesting to the fact that the full settlement amount listed in the Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account (MC-355) was deposited into a blocked account. The Court has not received your Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds For Deposit In Blocked Account (MC-356), which proves to this Court that the funds belonging to the minor are protected in account that is blocked from withdrawal. If the MC-356 is not on file before the hearing, the Court may issue an OSC re: Sanctions.