Rayhan – Other Probate

and as to that issue the decree is binding on the whole world.” (See also Bodine v. Superior Court (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 354, 359-360 [“Such a proceeding is not an ordinary civil action, but a specialized proceeding in rem." (Id at p. 383.) "So it has been said that such heirship decree [is] conclusive against all persons as the basis for the decree of distribution which [is] to follow; it settles the rights of all persons claiming as heirs of the decedent, whether or not they are named in the complaint or personally served with summons and whether or not they were individually named in [the] notice. . . . The decree is not one in personam in favor of one of the parties against another.” Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.].)

Under the foregoing authorities, mail service of the petition on Respondents was sufficient to support this court’s exercise of jurisdiction over claims asserted in the petition (ROA 2) seeking to contest a trust, remove a trustee, impose a surcharge in connection with the trustee’s breach of fiduciary duties, compel an accounting, determine the rights of heirs and beneficiaries, and the invalidity of a no-contest clause.

Mail service is not, however, sufficient to support this court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the remaining claims asserted in the petition, i.e. financial elder abuse, Probate Code section 850, and fraud. Nor is mail service sufficient to support an award of damages, double damages, and punitive damages against the individual respondents. (Prob. Code, § 581; Code of Civ. Proc., § 413.10 et seq.) Because those claims are alleged in this petition, mail service of the petition is not sufficient.

The motions are GRANTED.

Respondent Luz Maria Palacio is ordered to give notice.

2 Rayhan – Other Probate; 30-2023-01348724 Proceedings stayed 08/19/2026.

3 Richley – Trust; 30-2025-01493436 CONTINUED TO 09/16/2026 AT 09:00 AM.