DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVPG17-0029313·shasta·Probate·Conservatorship
Hearing todayGRANTED

CONSERVATORSHIP OF JEAN FAETH

Amended Fourth Account and Report of Conservator and Petition for Fees; Petition for Authority to Sell Conservatee’s Oil, Gas, Mineral, and Royalty Interests

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
44
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Jan 31, 2028
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

RespondentJean Faeth

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: CVPG17-0029313 This matter is on calendar for hearing on an amended Fourth Account and Report of Conservator and Petition for Fees. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. No objections have been raised. The amended Petition sufficiently addresses the issues raised on June 29, 2026. The Petition is GRANTED. A proposed Order has been submitted and will be executed. The clerk is directed to return the lodged original statements to the submitting party. The next account will cover the period from October 16, 2025, through October 15, 2027. and is required to be filed no later than January 18, 2028. The hearing currently set for August 31, 2026, regarding the Fourth Account and Report is hereby VACATED. This matter is set for Monday, January 31, 2028, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 for hearing on the Fifth Periodic Account and Report of Conservator.

This matter is also on calendar for hearing on a Petition for Authority to Sell Conservatee’s Oil, Gas, Mineral, and Royalty Interests. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. No objections have been raised. The paperwork appears to be in order. The Petition is GRANTED. A proposed Order has been lodged with the Court and will be executed. The Court confirms the future hearing date of October 19, 2026, for Biennial Review. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

CONSERVATORSHIP OF LINDA HARTMAN

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