DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVPB19-0030038·shasta·Civil·Probate
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

EST OF MCCARTHY

Review regarding status of appeal

Hearing date
May 26, 2026
Department
44
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 24, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$250.00

Parties

OtherMcCarthy
OtherTed Taylor

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: CVPB19-0030038 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of appeal. The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed this Court’s decision, found Ted Taylor is entitled to his costs on appeal, and issued a remittitur. This Court’s First Amended Judgment on Final Statement of Decision executed December 17, 2024 is final.

Going forward, this matter will proceed before Judge Barton in the probate department – Department 44 – to complete the estate administration. The matter is continued to Monday, August 24, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 for Status of Administration. If a Petition for Final Distribution cannot be filed prior to the next hearing, the Court ORDERS the Personal Representative to timely file and serve a Status Report with proper Notice of Hearing in compliance with Probate Code Section 12200 et seq.

Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause Re: Monetary Sanctions of $250.00 for failure to timely close the estate administration and failure to comply with the Court’s order. If a properly noticed Status Report or Petition for Final Distribution is noticed for a different date, the Court will vacate the August 24, 2026, date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. HASTINGS, ET AL.

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