CONSERVATORSHIP OF: RONALD L ZIGLER

25PR003598: CONSERVATORSHIP OF: RONALD L ZIGLER 05/20/2026 General Conservatorship in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ACCOUNTING AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ACCOUNTING; DECLARATION OF ROCHANDA ZIGLER

MOTION FILED: 2/4/2026

RE: Conservatorship of Ronald Zigler

MOVING PARTY: Rochanda Zigler, Petitioner In Pro Per

RESPONDING PARTY: Ronald Zigler, Proposed Conservatee Attorney: Randall Shrout, (916) 937-8322

RESPONDING PARTY: Libra Moses-Holland, Attorney-in-fact for Ronald Zigler Attorney: Cecelia Tsang, (916) 933-7511

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-

25PR003598: CONSERVATORSHIP OF: RONALD L ZIGLER 05/20/2026 General Conservatorship in Department 129

Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner and Movant Rochanda Zigler (“Petitioner”) seeks to compel an accounting by Ronald Zigler’s attorney-in-fact Libra Moses-Holland and requests the Court issue an order to show cause. The motion is DENIED as follows.

This is a conservatorship matter arising from Petitioner’s multiple petitions relating to Mr. Zigler’s care. Petitioner is Mr. Zigler’s daughter. Petitioner’s petition for appointment as conservator, filed on October 24, 2025, was dismissed without prejudice on February 18, 2026. The second petition to remove caregiver Gregory Holland, was filed on January 14, 2026 and dismissed on February 23, 2026. On January 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition to Revoke or Invalidate Power of Attorney of Proposed Conservatee Ronald Zigler Appointing Libra Holland- Moses [sic] as his Attorney-in-Fact. The Petition was set for hearing on February 19, 2026, then continued to March 12, 2026, then set for trial on June 5, 2026.

Petitioner moves for an accounting pursuant to Probate Code, sections 1000, 2103, 2104, 2620, 2621, 2622.5, 4541, 1060-1064, and Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.010.

At the outset, Probate Code sections 2103 and 2104 discuss requirements applicable to appointed conservators and guardians, not attorneys-in-fact. Further, Probate Code sections 2620, 2621, and 2622.5 all detail accounting requirements for appointed conservators and guardians. Probate Code sections 1060-1064 relate to accountings filed with the court. Here, there is no appointed conservator or guardian and no accounting to be filed with the court. The Court cannot compel an attorney-in-fact to provide an accounting on these grounds.

Petitioner next argues that “Probate Code section 4541 requires an attorney-in-fact to provide an accounting upon demand.” (Motion, 3:9.) Probate Code section 4541 provides that a petition may be filed to compel an attorney-in-fact to submit accounts or reports “to the principal, the spouse of the principal, the conservator of the person or the estate of the principal, or to any other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR003598: CONSERVATORSHIP OF: RONALD L ZIGLER 05/20/2026 General Conservatorship in Department 129

person required by the court in its discretion, if the attorney-in-fact has failed to submit an accounting or report within 60 days after written request from the person filing the petition.” (Prob. Code, § 4541(c).) Petitioner has not alleged sufficient facts to establish that she is the principal, the spouse of the principal, or the conservator of the person or the estate of the principal. For the reasons discussed below, the Court, in its discretion, declines to require Ms. Moses-Holland to provide an account or report to Petitioner.

On May 5, 2026, Mr. Zigler filed a special appearance to object, and an opposition. He opposes on the grounds that no underlying petition exists. However, in light of the pending petition filed on January 14, 2026 and set for hearing, the Court rejects this objection. Mr. Zigler further opposes the motion on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing because no conservatorship of the estate has been established. (Opposition, 2:20-22.) Mr. Zigler opposes the request for an order to show cause due to Petitioner’s lack of a “prima facie showing of wrongdoing supported by competent evidence.” (Opposition, 9:21-22.) Mr. Zigler states he opposes the motion, is able to obtain the financial information he needs upon request to his attorney-in-fact, and that his attorney-in-fact “assists [him] at [his] direction and for [his] benefit.” (Declaration of Ronald Zigler, ¶¶ 3, 8-9.)

Ms. Moses-Holland also opposes. Ms. Moses-Holland states that an attorney-in-fact is only required to account in circumstances set forth in Probate Code section 4326(b), which states: “ (b) The attorney-in-fact does not have a duty to make an account of transactions entered into on behalf of the principal, except in the following circumstances: (1) At any time requested by the principal. (2) Where the power of attorney requires the attorney-in-fact to account and specifies to whom the account is to be made. (3) On request by the conservator of the estate of the principal while the principal is living. (4) On request by the principal’s personal representative or successor in interest after the death of the principal. (5) Pursuant to court order.” (Prob. Code, § 4236(b) [emphasis added].)

The aforementioned circumstances are not present in this matter. Thus, the attorney-in-fact has no duty to provide an account to Petitioner.

Finally, Petitioner cited to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 to support her motion to compel. Petitioner offers no authority to demonstrate how a motion to compel pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act is the proper procedural vehicle to compel an attorney-in-fact to “submit the attorney-in-fact’s accounts or report the attorney-in-fact’s acts as attorney-in-fact ” (Prob. Code, § 4541.) “[Probate Code] Section 1000 provides, in relevant part, ‘Except to the extent that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR003598: CONSERVATORSHIP OF: RONALD L ZIGLER 05/20/2026 General Conservatorship in Department 129

[the Probate Code] provides applicable rules, the rules of practice applicable to civil actions . . . apply to, and constitute the rules of practice’ in proceedings under the Probate Code. (§ 1000, subd. (a).)” (Goebner v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1110 [emphasis added].) “This is a rule of default—that is, the Probate Code ‘adopts the civil practice rules only where special rules are not prescribed.’” (Id., citing Merrill v. Finberg (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) The Probate Code expressly prescribes the procedure to compel an attorney-in-fact to account or report.

Given Mr. Zigler’s declaration attesting to Ms. Moses-Holland’s satisfactory handling of his requests for assistance, and because Ms. Moses-Holland has no duty to account to Petitioner, the order to show cause is similarly denied.

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)