DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PB-0033356·shasta·Probate·Estate
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

ESTATE OF EDWARD HEFFNER JR.

Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
44
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 13, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherEdward Heffner Jr.

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26PB-0033356 This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. No objections have been raised. The Petition contains the following defects: 1. Item 2(a) is incomplete regarding the decedent’s date of death.

2. Form DE-300 is not attached as required by item 8.

3. An Inventory and Appraisal is not attached as required by item 8. The Court notes an Inventory and Appraisal was filed separately, however it is incomplete as to items 3 and 5 and is not signed.

4. Item 9(a) 3 or 4 must be completed.

5. Item 9(a) 5 or 6 must be completed.

6. Item 9(a) 7 or 8 must be completed.

7. Attachment 11 fails to provide facts to show that the property was decedent’s primary residence.

8. Item 13 states that Petitioner is entitled to 100% of the interest in the property. Petitioner is the decedent’s brother and attachment 14 indicates that the decedent was also survived by two sisters, therefore each sibling is entitled to a 1/3 share. It is unclear why Petitioner is entitled to 100% of the property.

The matter is continued to Monday, July 13, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 for further proceedings regarding the Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence. An amended Petition is required to be filed to address the issues raised above. Petitioner is also required to file and serve a new Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date, along with a copy of the amended Petition, on all parties entitled to notice. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

ESTATE OF CECELIA HERNANDEZ

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