Estate of Beverly Hoebel

The following must be submitted: Proof of Service on Relatives of Proposed Conservatee. At least 15 days before the hearing on the petition for appointment of a conservator, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by timely mailing service of the notice and copy of the petition to the (1) spouse, if any, or registered domestic partner, if any, of the proposed conservatee, and (2) relatives named in the petition at their addresses stated in the petition. (Prob. Code, §1822.) Confidential Declaration on Medical Ability to Attend Hearing (GC-325) - As of January 1, 2025, the ability of the proposed conservatee to attend the hearing will be determined on evidence submitted on Judicial Counsel form GC-325. This form was adopted for mandatory use as of January 1, 2025. This form must be filed, or the proposed conservatee will be expected to attend the hearing. Capacity Declaration (GC-335) - No order adjudging that conservatee lacks capacity to give informed consent to medical treatment may be granted unless supported by a declaration executed by a licensed physician or licensed psychologist supporting the request. (Prob. Code, § 1890(c).) The proposed conservatee is expected to attend the hearing, unless a Confidential Declaration on Medical Ability to Attend Hearing (GC-325) is filed and shows an medical inability to attend. (Prob. Code, § 1825.) (Prob. Code, § 1825(a)(2)[medical inability].) Tentative Ruling: Estate of James R Kotaska Tentative Ruling: Estate of James R Kotaska Case Number 26PR00025 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. After review of the supplement filed on March 10, 2026, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Heirs Identified. According to the allegations in the petition, and the first supplement filed on March 9, 2026, the following heirs have been identified: William Kotaksa (jr.”) - Brother of decedent. Barbara Kotaksa Gruber - Deceased sister of decedent. Paul C. Gruber - Son of Barbara Kotaksa Gruber, nephew of decedent. Further persons entitled to notice: Decedent's neighbors, "John and Patti" identified in the will. "Roger" identified in the will. "Roger's brother" identified in the will. The 'step children' of William Kotaksa. Proof of service must be given to these newly identified persons. Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-121). Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees, as well as on the Personal Representative (if not the petitioner) and special notice requestors. (Prob. Code, §§ 8100 & 8110.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (§1220.) The Amended proof of service filed on March 9, 2026, did not include the persons listed above in the 'further persons entitle to notice' section. Waivers of Bond. Bond must be waived by all adult heirs at law. Petitioner must file bond waivers (Form DE-142) for all heirs or devisees named in a will. There is no bond waiver on file for Paul C. Gruber, William Kotaksa, or any of the further persons entitled to notice above. Original Will. An original will and any codicil to that will must be lodged with the Court. (Prob. Code, §§ 8200, et seq.) It is insufficient to attach a copy of the will to the petition without lodging the original. Proof of Holographic Instrument (Form DE-135). The petition requests a holographic will or codicil be admitted to probate. All codicils must be proven in the same manner as a will (Prob. Code, §§ 88, 6110, 8222), and all holographic instruments must be proven by submission of evidence that that the holographic instrument is in fact in the testator's handwriting. Form DE-135 must be used to do so. Supplement to the Petition. A supplement to the petition must be submitted naming (and more completely identifying) all known persons named in decedent's will and their relationship to Decedent. (Pet. at ¶8.) The Court has discretion to require service to these heirs pursuant to Probate Code section 1202. Nomination of Administrator. The holographic will does not name an executor. Petitioner does not have priority of administration over William Kotaksa or Paul Gruber pursuant to Probate Code section 8461. Please submit a nomination from all those with equal or greater priority. A written declination must be filed by or on behalf of an individual who is entitled to priority for issuance of Letters of administration but does not desire to act, or evidence must be produced that the person with priority is not competent under Probate Code section 8402 or refuses to act. (Local Rule 1752(d)1.) Tentative Ruling: Estate of Edward Valencia Tentative Ruling: Estate of Edward Valencia Case Number 26PR00037 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. On January 20, 2026, Lisa Marie Valencia filed a Petition for Probate of Will and Letters Testamentary. On March 11, 2026, Rosalie Valencia filed an objection to the Petition of Lisa Marie Valencia. That objection was amended and filed on April 9, 2026, after a competing petition for Letters of Administration was filed on March 26, 2026. The Amended Objection of Rosalie Valencia plainly opposes both the appointment of Lisa Marie Valencia and the admission of the will offered by that petition to probate. The Probate Notes for the March 18, 2026, hearing on this matter outlined the procedural requirements to properly contest both appointment of personal representative and a will. Only one of those procedures has been followed by the submission of competing petition for Letters of Administration. A contest to a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary may involve a contest to the appointment of the personal representative, a contest to the will, or both. When appointment of a personal representative is contested, Probate Code section 8004 requires a written objection and competing petition be filed and served in accordance with Probate Code section 8110 [15 days, mail or personal service to all entitled to take by intestate, and each devisee, executor, and alternative executor]. (Prob. Code, § 8004, subd. (a).) The competing petition need not be published as long as publication of the first petition was completed according to statute. There is a competing petition on file, which places the appointment of a personal representative of the estate at issue, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.) HOWEVER, the procedure to contest the will has not been followed. When a will is contested, Probate Code section 8250 requires a written objection to probate of the will be filed, and a copy of the objection along with a summons be served to all those entitled to notice listed in section 8110 [all entitled to take by intestate, and each devisee, executor, and alternative executor]. The summons must be served according to the procedures in the Code of Civil Procedure Title 5, Part 2, Chapters 3 and 4 [§ 412.10 et seq]. The original petitioning party may file an answer to the objection, or demur, within 30 days after service of the summons. (Prob. Code, § 8250, subd(a) and 8251, subd. (a).) If a party fails to respond to a served summons within 30 days, the case is still at issue, but the non-responding party loses the right to further contest the appointment or the will. (Prob. Code, § 8251, subd. (c).) Contrary to the baffling claims in the objection that no original will was filed, and the proposed order and letters do not match the requests in the petition, Ms. Valencia submitted what is absolutely an original will on January 29, 2026, and proposed order and letters that matched the relief requested in the petition on February 25, 2026, and January 20, 2026, respectively. THEREFORE, the admission of the will is NOT at issue, and will not be placed at issue until the above outlined procedure to contest the will is followed. SANCTIONS. Both parties appear to have been aware that a dissolution case was pending upon the death of the decedent in this case. Thus, sanctions are warranted against both parties (CRC, Rule 2.30) for not filing a notice of related case pursuant to the requirement to do so by the California Rules of Court and ethical duties of candor, since rulings in the dissolution case (25FL01499) could potentially affect the outcome of the disposition of the estate, since those rulings affect claims involving property that is easily categorized as both part of the marital and decedent's estate (Rule, 3.300(a)(3)). Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Yimi Bernardo Fuentes Orellana Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Yimi Bernardo Fuentes Orellana Case Number 26PR00072 Case Type Guardianship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Guardian Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Leilani Jade Prado Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Leilani Jade Prado Case Number 26PR00078 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. On October 28, 2025, Teresa Saucedo filed a Petition for Limited Conservatorship over the person of Leilani Prado in case no 25PR00553. That Petition was amended and filed on October 31, 2025. The Amended Petition received objection by Alberto Perez Licerio on January 6, 2026, placing the Amended Petition at issue, which requires evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.) On February 17, 2026, Alberto Perez Licerio filed a Petition for Appointment of General Conservator over person and estate. This petition was filed, without explanation, in a different case (no. 26PR00078), was accompanied by a Petition for Temporary Conservatorship, and was not accompanied by a Notice of Related Case. This petition received objection by Teresa Saucedo on February 25, 2026, placing the petition at issue, which requires evidentiary hearing to resolve. While the filing of Mr. Licerio's petition in a separate case could be considered a mistake, the fact that it was accompanied by a Petition for Temporary Conservatorship and there was no Notice of Related Case filed in either case number, raises a presumption of gamesmanship that this court should not tolerate, and warrants sanctions. Parties must come prepared to discuss any discovery needs and come prepared to set dates for trial. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Isabel Christine Tanore Bohl Tentative Ruling: Estate of Isabel Christine Tanore Bohl Case Number 26PR00079 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/01/2026 - 21:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Letters of Administration Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval. Tentative Ruling: Estate of Charles R. Dion Tentative Ruling: Estate of Charles R. Dion Case Number 26PR00083 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Parties must come prepared to discuss the following: Priority of Pretermitted Spouse. Decedent executed his last will and testament in 1971. In that instrument he named his spouse as executrix and sole devisee. (Pet. at attch 3f(2), Art. 1.) Decedent subsequently divorced that spouse in 2017, which requires this Court to treat the ex-spouse as pre-deceased. (Prob. Code, §6122(c)(2).) However, evidence on file with the Court (death certificate at attch. 3g(1)(d)) shows the Decedent presumably married a subsequent spouse named Gloria Foster. This means Ms. Foster is presumably a pretermitted spouse pursuant to Probate Code section 21610, et seq., which raises a question of priority of appointment since section 21610 creates an intestacy for Ms. Foster's share of the estate, and section 8461 gives Ms. Foster priority of appointment in an intestate estate. A similar situation was held to give a pretermitted child priority in a Supreme Court case. (In re Stickelbaut's Estate (1960) 54 Cal.2d 390.) Therefore, petitioner must come prepared to discuss the following: Whether Ms. Foster bears any burden to prove her marriage to Decedent. Whether Ms. Foster's priority of appointment over the intestate share of the estate as pretermitted spouse requires this court to consider her a priority over the entire estate administration. Tentative Ruling: Matter of The Eugene M Sarich Trust dated December 21 2004 Tentative Ruling: Matter of The Eugene M Sarich Trust dated December 21 2004 Case Number 26PR00088 Case Type Trust Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Any Respondents desirous to object to the Petition, must file a written objection before the hearing. The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Kaylee Ann James Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Kaylee Ann James Case Number 26PR00120 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Limited Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following defects must be submitted before the matter can proceed: Regional Center Report. When the proposed conservatee is a person with developmental disabilities, a report from the appropriate regional center (in this geographical area, the regional center is Tri-Counties). (Prob. C. § 1827.5.) The proposed conservatee is expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1825.) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Jacqueline Ruffoni Tentative Ruling: Estate of Jacqueline Ruffoni Case Number 26PR00126 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Determine Succession to Real Property Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Johnny Tucker Jr Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Johnny Tucker Jr Case Number 26PR00129 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Conservatorship of the Person Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Petitioners must come prepared to further elaborate the Request to Dispense with Notice to the Maternal Grandparents. The proposed conservatee is expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1825.) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Matter of the Frank and Ruth Loper Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of the Frank and Ruth Loper Trust Case Number 26PR00141 Case Type Trust Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Determine Claim to Real Property Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: In 1965, Frank and Ruth Loper took title to 1264 N. Refugio Road, as husband and wife as joint tenants. In 1998, Frank and Ruth Loper took title to an addition parcel of real property as husband and wife as community property. The properties are unrelated, and do not appear to be situated close to each other. Frank and Ruth Loper thereafter executed the subject trust in 2000. According to the language of the trust, the Refugio Road property was expressly stated to be held as property of that trust, evinced by listing the Refugio Road property at Schedule A of the 2000 trust instrument, but a deed transferring title to the Refugio Road property to the trust was not recorded during the life of Frank. Petitioner alleges that Frank died in 2000, and Ruth amended the Trust four times before her death in 2025. In 2023, Ruth finally recorded an Affidavit of Death of Joint Owner and a Trust Transfer Deed purportion to place the recorded title of the Refugio Road Property into the trust. The legal description of the Refugio Road property in the 1965 deed was mistakenly switched with the legal description of the property contained in the 1998 deed to the other property owned by Frank and Ruth. Petitioner is the successor trustee of the subject trust. The amendments to the trust are not relevant for the purposes of this case, because they do not alter provisions applicable to the relief requested by Petitioner. However, it is alleged in the petition that a cloud exists on title to the Refugio Road property, because the legal description in Ruth's 2023 Trust Transfer Deed did not contain the correct legal description of the Refugio Property. Since the legal description in the 2023 recorded Trust Transfer Deed is what created the cloud on title, and since there is no person other than Ruth and her heirs/beneficiaries that are able to make a claim against the trust for title of the Refugio Road property, this matter is not the proper circumstance to warrant a petition under section 850 of the Probate Code. (Dudek v. Dudek (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 154, 170-171 [Section 850 "provides the probate court with a mechanism to determine rights in property belonging to a decedent or to someone else."]; Parker v. Schwarcz (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 418, 429 ["Recent cases have observed that " '[t]he statutory scheme's purpose is to effect a conveyance or transfer of property belonging to a decedent or a trust or another person under specified circumstances, to grant any appropriate relief to carry out the decedent's [or settlor's] intent, and to prevent looting of ... estates. [Citations.] It provides the probate court with a mechanism to determine rights in property belonging to a decedent or to someone else.' "].) Thus, section 850 cannot and should not be relied upon in this case to clear what is a textbook, simple cloud on title. (Prob. Code, § 856.5.) Accordingly, the petition should be denied. Tentative Ruling: Estate of Beverly Hoebel Tentative Ruling: Estate of Beverly Hoebel Case Number 26PR00150 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The following must be submitted: Proof of Publication. No proof of publication was filed. Jurisdiction of the Probate Court is obtained by publication in accordance with Article 3 of Division 7, Part 2, Chapter 2 Probate Code. (Prob. Code, § 8003(b).) Publication requires the notice to be published in a newspaper adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in the city of decedent's residence (Prob. Code, §§ 8121, 7122) and to contain the substantially same language and format shown in Probate Code section 8100. If the city of decedent's residence has no newspaper adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation, publication must occur "in a newspaper of general circulation in the county which is circulated within the area of the county in which the decedent resided or the property is located." (Prob. Code, §8121(b).) It is unacceptable to merely file a copy of the newspaper clipping as proof of publication. A Petitioner must obtain an affidavit executed under the penalty of perjury by the person with authority to affect publication at the newspaper. (Prob. Code, §8124.) PUBLICATION MUST OCCUR IN THE SANTA MARIA TIMES. Proof of Holographic Instrument (Form DE-135). The petition requests a holographic will or codicil be admitted to probate. All codicils must be proven in the same manner as a will (Prob. Code, §§ 88, 6110, 8222), and all holographic instruments must be proven by submission of evidence that that the holographic instrument is in fact in the testator's handwriting. Form DE-135 must be used to do so. If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by 8:00 a.m. on May 11, 2026, it is recommended that the matter be continued to a date to be set by the Court at the hearing, unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).) If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered.