DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025PRDE052112·ventura·Probate·Probate
Hearing todaySubject to statutory notice or a valid waiver, and filing of a verified supplement, the Court will approve $11,065.50 in statutory fees and $1,483.20 in cost reimbursement.

IN THE MATTER OF CONRAD SCHLUNEGGER

Petition for Waiver of Accounting and Final Distribution

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
J6
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$11,065.50$1,483.20

Parties

OtherConrad Schlunegger

Ruling

2025PRDE052112: IN THE MATTER OF CONRAD SCHLUNEGGER 08/20/2026 in Department J6 Hearing on Petition for Waiver of Accounting and Final Distribution

As of 8/18/26, no notice of hearing has been filed. If the Waivers of Notice of Proposed Action (NOPAs) filed on 3/18/26 are intended to waive notice for this hearing, the Court notes that the NOPA procedure does not apply to the settlement of accounts, allowances of statutory fees, or final distributions. (Prob. Code, §§ 10501, subd. (a), 10580, subd. (a), 10583.)

Subject to statutory notice or a valid waiver thereof, a final account will be waived.

When an account is waived, the fee computation must be substantially in the form provided in California Rules of Court, rule 7.705(a). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.705(b).) The petition fails to indicate the amounts for receipts, gains, or losses. If there was none, this should be stated. Petitioner is directed to serve and file a verified supplement that complies with rule 7.705.

Subject to the foregoing and assuming that the fee computation provided in the petition is correct, the Court will approve $11,065.50 in statutory fees and $1,483.20 in cost reimbursement to Petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner waives her fees.

The proposed final distribution of the estate to Petitioner as the trustee of the Conrad Schlunegger and June Schlunegger Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated November 9, 1995 is consistent with the terms of the will.

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