Annette Sakellaridis, Trustee v. Konstantinos C. Bakolas and Alicia Bakolas-Boukas, Successor Co-Trustees

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

ANNETTE SAKELLARIDIS, TRUSTEE OF Case No.: CIVSB2520985 THE FAMILY TRUST OF ANNETTE SAKELLARIDIS DATED OCTOBER 20, 2016, [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND Plaintiff, ORDERING SUBMISSION OF FURTHER AMENDED REPORT v. BY THE REFEREE

KONSTANTINOS C. BAKOLAS AND ALICIA BAKOLAS-BOUKAS, SUCCESSOR CO- TRUSTEES OF THE BAKOLAS FAMILY TRUST U/D/O MAY 5, 2004, Defendants.

IX. INTRODUCTION This is a partition action. On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff Annette Sakellaridis, Trustee of the

Family Trust of Annette Sakellaridis dated October 20, 2016, filed a Complaint against

Defendants Christos K. Bakolas and Vasiliki C. Bakolas, Co-Trustees of the Bakolas Family

Trust dated May 5, 2004, alleging four (4) causes of action for Partition of four (4) parcels of real

property.

On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, naming Nominal

Defendant Konstantinos C. Bakolas and Alicia Bakolas-Boukas, Successor Co-Trustees of the

Bakolas Family Trust dated May 5, 2004 (DOE 1).

On March 4, 2026, the Court entered a Stipulated Interlocutory Judgment providing for

the partition by sale of the Subject Properties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

872.720. The Parties further agreed to appoint Bobby Mendez of Bobby Mendez Real Estate

Services as Partition Referee (“Referee Mendez”), granting him authority to set the listing price

and sell the Subject Properties at a private sale to the highest and best net bidder, subject to Court

confirmation.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Sale and Approve Referee’s

Report, filed June 30, 2026. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order: (1) confirming Referee

Mendez’s Report and (2) confirming the sale of the Subject Properties to a third-party buyer,

LHP LLC (“Buyer”).

On July 17, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte Application to Advance the

Hearing on the Motion and set a briefing schedule. On July 31, 2026, Defendants filed a limited

opposition. On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply.

X. EXPLANATION OF COURT’S RULING The Court finds that the proceedings were not unfair and that notice of sale was properly

given. Both the Purchaser and Defendants received copies of the Motion, Initial Report, and

Amended Report at least 10 days before the hearing, satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section

873.720, subdivision (b). Further, there is no evidence submitted demonstrating that a higher or

more competitive offer was submitted.

Nevertheless, the Court concludes that continuing the motion hearing is necessary, so that

Referee Mendez can file a supplemental or amended report. Neither the Initial nor the Amended

Report provides sufficient detail regarding the amounts owed to Plaintiff’s counsel as a

lienholder or the outstanding property taxes assessed against the Subject Properties. Although

Plaintiff does not request an immediate distribution of funds, and Code of Civil Procedure

section 873.820 allows sale proceeds to satisfy liens prior to final distribution, Code of Civil

Procedure sections 873.710(b)(5) and 874.321(b)(5) require the referee’s report to identify all

lienholders and state the precise amounts payable to them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court