DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
TP19-7245·nevada·Probate·Conservatorship
Hearing 4 months agoCONTINUED

In the Matter of WILLIALDO AVALOS PEDROZA

Review of Conservatorship

Hearing date
Apr 27, 2026
Department
A
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Apr 24, 2028
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

April 27, 2026 Truckee Probate Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000974 In the Matter of Yuechang Cai

This matter is before the Court on a petition to administer decedent’s estate. The Court is in receipt of proof of publication and signed duties. As to bond, all heirs at law are adults and have waived bond. No defects are noted. The proposed order is approved, and Letters shall issue upon presented. Proposed Letters to be presented to the Court Clerk within one week from today. No appearances are required.

2. PR0000989 In Re the Matter of Nancy A. D'Amico

This matter is before the Court on a petition to administer decedent’s estate. The Court is in receipt of proof of publication and signed duties. Bond is waived. No defects are noted. Letters shall issue following issuance of an order and upon presentment. The Court notes no proposed order or letters have been lodged. Petitioner to submit same within one week. No appearances are required.

3. TP19-7245 In the Matter of WILLIALDO AVALOS PEDROZA

No appearances required. Conservatorship to continue as it remains necessary and appropriate. The Court finds the co-conservators are acting in Conservatee’s best interests regarding his placement and quality of care including physical and mental treatment. The investigation report fee is waived. The next review hearing is set for April 24, 2028 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. A.

1

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