Matter of Saulsbury-Gates Trust

Appearances required. There is no notification of receipt of transfer on file from Contra Costa County. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of George Bradford Fisher Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of George Bradford Fisher Case Number 1230156 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. No appearance is required. The next review hearing will be held on the same date of the next scheduled Accounting, June 7, 2027. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Elizabeth Nielsen Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Elizabeth Nielsen Case Number 1320148 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/13/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Biennial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. No appearance is required. The next review hearing will be held on April 10, 2028. The Court will give notice of this hearing. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Caleb B Willis Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Caleb B Willis Case Number 1457059 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Review of Investigator's Report Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. No appearance is required. The next review hearing will be held on May 3, 2027, at 8:30. The Court will give notice of the hearing. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Lindsey Curb Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Lindsey Curb Case Number 1483299 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/11/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Annual Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. No appearance is required. The next review hearing will be held on May 10, 2027. The Court will give notice of the hearing. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Cheryl Valentine Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Cheryl Valentine Case Number 17PR00468 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/06/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Annual Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. No appearance is required. The next review hearing will be held on March 1, 2027. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Frank Mendez Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Frank Mendez Case Number 18PR00323 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/20/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Review: Investigator's Report Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on April 19, 2027, notice of which will be sent by the court. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Joanetta Hanson Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Joanetta Hanson Case Number 21PR00490 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/13/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings 1. First Accounting and Report of Trustee 2. OSC re Accounting Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The notes that hereafter follow are provided after review of the Sixth Supplement filed on March 3, 2026: Procedural Posture There are currently two matters on calendar: A review hearing on the First Accounting and Report of Trustee. An Order to Show Cause why a forensic accounting should not be ordered. On November 14, 2025, a Second Account and Report of the Conservator was also filed, but does not appear to have been placed on calendar. Although that matter is not technically on calendar in the Court's case management system, it was properly noticed for the last hearing date of December 1, 2025, and should have been continued to the hearing date of January 12, 2026. OSC Why a Forensic Accounting Should Not Be Ordered On December 13, 202 4, the Court issued an OSC as to why the Court Investigator should not be ordered to investigate the trust and require an Accounting. In response to that OSC, a First Accounting and Report of Trustee was filed on January 16, 2025. In response to that filing, several discrepancies were noted by the Court, the most egregious being that the account period suspiciously did not start on a date far enough in the past to give the Court the information needed to determine the reasonableness of the legal fees spent by the trust on the establishment of the conservatorship. It was noted that the starting point for the accounting should be at least October of 2021, but more reasonably, May of 2021, when it appears the first work performed on establishing the conservatorship or work paid by the trust was billed. Since those notes were first posted there have been five supplements and one declaration attempting to address the discrepancies noted by the Court, but the trustee still has not amended the Trust Accounting back to October or May of 2021. Thus, the following issues with the First Account and Report of the trustee remain. Issues With First Account and Report of Trustee After review of the accounting, supplements, and declarations filed in this case (last in time being those filed on February 6, 2026), the issues that follow remain unresolved. Discrepancy no. 1 - Accounting Period - Unresolved by fifth supplement. It is the responsibility of a trustee to account for all funds within its control. (Prob. Code, §§ 16000, 16006, 16011, 16014, 16060-69.) Trustee admits in the fifth supplement that it paid attorney's fees from the trust corpus at the behest of its former attorney, thus should be held to account for the reasonableness of those fees. The now fifth failure to account for those fees should be used as a basis to surcharge the trustee the total amount of the fees unaccounted for. Previous note The accounting period is not useful and suspiciously lacks transparency, because the accounting period ignores what appears to be at least seven months of billable work performed by the Trustee's, then, attorney (Lori Lewis), two months of billable work from the Conservator, and an unknown amount of billable work by the Trustee. There is no logical reason to start the accounting period on January 1st of 2022, when a Private Professional Fiduciary--with no prior relation to the Conservatee--petitioned the Court for appointment on the 19 th of October, 2021, and the attorney for the trustee billed as far back as May of 2021. This is especially specious when the Trustee alleges via Declaration that Lori Lewis was retained to represent the Trustee in February 2022, when Ms. Lewis was clearly working on the matter in May of 2021. A massive amount of fees ($275,208.83) [1] have already been documented as having been paid to two attorneys, the Conservator and Trustee in this case, as well as presumed but not reported fees paid to attorney Michelon Vasquez. [2] Therefore, the Court should order the Accounting to be amended to include an Accounting period extending back to the date of the first billable hour (fiduciary or attorney) expended in the conservatorship and trust case, the least of which should be May 1, 2021. The Court should specifically order Ms. Michelon Vasquez to account for all fees she has been paid by the trust. Recommendation re: resolution to Discrepancy no. 1 - Surcharge the trustee the total amount of fees paid to Lori Lewis that are unaccounted for ($81,818.41). Discrepancy no. 2 - Unresolved by fifth supplement. Probate Code section 1063 is clear: Market values of ALL property in the schedule showing the Estate on Hand at End of Account must be split into carry and market value. Please review Fiduciary Accounting Handbook (2023 Cont. Ed. of the Bar) §10.10 and 10.11. Previous Note Estate on hand at end of account not supported by schedule showing market value. (Prob. Code, §1063(a).) This is still an unresolved issue, and the email from Sherry Thore does not solve the problem. Recommendation re: resolution to Discrepancy no. 2 - Surcharge trustee and attorney $2,000 for failure to follow Probate Code accounting procedures and order the schedule corrected without fees, submitted by supplement. Discrepancy no. 4 - Unresolved by fifth supplement. Petitioner admits to comingling funds from the conservatorship estate in order to pay for what appears to be mismanagement by the trustee of trust funds. This violates several fiduciary duties. (See Prob. Code, §§ 16000, 16004, 16006, 16007, 16009, 16011, etc. etc.) Previous Note Several transactions appear unusual: Transfers from "Estate of Joanetta Janee Hansen" totaling $285,114.84: DATE PAYEE AMOUNT PAID 1/16/25 Wire from Estate of Joanetta Jonee Hansen $36,000 2/14/25 Wire from Estate of Joanetta Jonee Hansen $50,000 3/20/25 Wire from Estate of Joanetta Jonee Hansen $30,000 4/18/2025 Wire from Estate of Joanetta Jonee Hansen $75,000 6/24/25 Wire from Estate of Joanetta Jonee Hansen $3,404.64 6/27/25 Wire from Estate of Joanetta Jonee Hansen $10,000 These payments are accounted for in the Second Conservatorship accounting, but there is no explanation why the trust is being paid from the conservatorship, or needs to be. 7/27/22 Montecito Bank & Trust HELOC $180,687.88 The trustee must explain why a HELOC exists when there appeared to be sufficient funds in the trust and conservatorship estate. Trustee must include facts related to when the HELOC was established/incurred, and whether the Conservatee had capacity to contract for that HELOC on the date it was established/incurred. 3/10/2022 Montecito Bank & Trust (Overdraft) $5,000 8/16/2022 Montecito Bank & Trust (Overdraft) $500 Various Montecito Bank & Trust Rounded number "mortgage payments" that vary 9/27/23 Montecito Bank & Trust (Overdraft) $200 11/30/23 Montecito Bank & Trust (Overdraft) $10.00 In addition to overdraft fees, the mortgage payments to Montecito Bank appear to be arbitrary and sporadic, paid in rounded numbers that do not indicate actual mortgage business practices. Overdraft is a breach of fiduciary duty, and any loss to the trust should be paid by the trustee, deducted from fees, and trustee must explain why the mortgage was paid in the questionable way it was, incurring overdrafts as a result. 9/28/2023 Montecito Bank & Trust ("operating cash") $2,046 The supplement actually accounts for this as a receipt, not a disbursement. Exhibit E to a previous Supplement shows that the amount is rent received by the Trust, minus management fees. This was not corrected in the most recent supplement, should have been included in receipts, not disbursements, and throws off the entire accounting. Various SES INS Brokerage Svc $69,982.05 The explanation in the supplement raises more questions, now that the disbursement is identified. The question now is "why does it cost $69,982.05 for insurance on the "properties" for the bank's insurance, when the properties themselves have homeowner's insurance being paid according to other disbursements in the accounting?" Various Smitty's Towing $7,700 This explanation raises the question as to why vehicles are being stored for the Conservatee that she can arguably never drive again? If the Court is unsatisfied with the explanations above, it appears that many of the disbursements are not a necessity, and could be surcharged. (Prob. Code, § 1064(a)(2).) Recommendation re: resolution to Discrepancy no. 4 - Surcharge trustee all amounts paid from the conservatorship account. Order all transaction information from the HELOC account submitted via supplement for further review and adjudication by the court. Discrepancy no. 5. - Unresolved by fifth supplement. The trustee admits that it paid conservatorship fees without court order. It cannot now shirk its fiduciary duty of loyalty (Prob. Code, §16002, 16004), and due diligence (Prob. Code, §16006, 16007, 16010, 16013) by now saying any questionable billing practice is a conservatorship issue. Previous Note Conservator fees were paid out of the trust without prior court authorization. The amount paid over the accounting period (30 months) was $49,150.33. This amounts to ~$1,638 per month. This is objectively unreasonable without further proof that the services provided were justified by the conservatee's needs. Close scrutiny of the billing statements previously submitted (which are now incomplete due to longer accounting period and far more conservatorship fees paid than previously reported) reveals $150 per hour was being charged for clerical work, and several entries for "Digital File Management" are likely overcharge for clerical work. As a general principle, billing hours by a private fiduciary should be low when that fiduciary employs others to do their job. In this case, the fiduciary employed what appears to be 24 hour caregivers to tend to the needs of the conservatee, and billed primarily for work labeled "digital file management" (a nebulous term that tells the Court nothing about what kind of work was being performed), and answering emails and phone calls related to the conservatorship. In that light, the billing is excessive and should be reduced. Recommendation re: resolution to Discrepancy no. 5 - Surcharge the trustee the entire amount paid to the conservator without court approval, and surcharge the conservator $24,321 for fee seeking in the trust to avoid court oversight. Discrepancy no. 6 - Unresolved by fifth supplement. Despite clear caselaw precedent proscribing the use of a posted corporate trustee fee schedule as the justification, trustee did NOTHING to justify their incredible fees. There are not billing schedules provided showing the reasonableness of the work performed, nor the necessity of the task. Previous notes Trustees paid themselves $54,193.90 (Union Bank) and $84,275.50 (US Bank) fees during the accounting period, which is 30 months. That amounts to an unbelievable $4,615.64 per month; an objectively egregious amount. Many of the trustee fees appear to be duplicates. Even if these duplicates are scrivener's errors, the errors were not corrected in supplement. This amount is completely unjustifiable under the circumstances. The trustee fee schedule that was previously produced is not remedial. The appropriateness of trustee fees are tempered by Rules of Court, Rule 7.776, which contains factors the Court must look to in order to determine the reasonableness of the request. As such, trustees may not rely alone upon a flat percentage of the trust to calculate fees, but must submit documentation of the hours spent, nature of work performed, rate charged, etc. Corporate trustees in the Los Angeles area customarily charge for their services amounts calculated from a schedule of percentages of the value of various trust assets. [Citation.] The compensation sought by petitioner as trustee was calculated from such a schedule. But the custom in the community as to charges by corporate trustees is only one of many factors which the Supreme Court has said that a judge must consider. Among the other factors, the routine character of the work done stands out clearly. As to the factor of time actually spent by the trustee, the trustee chose not to apprise the court concerning this matter. It appears, however, that what the trustee did would have consumed very few hours. Petitioner seems to feel that if a corporate trustee had been asking for compensation, allowance would have been made on the basis of its schedule of fees. We do not share that assumption. On the contrary, there is no basis in the record for inferring that the trial court would have acted any differently had the trustee been a bank or trust company rather than an individual. The Legislature has made it clear that it is the responsibility of a judge of the superior court to fix the compensation of a trustee. That responsibility is not met by unquestioning acceptance of a schedule used by a corporate trustee. (Estate of Nazro (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 218, 221-222.) Recommendation re: resolution to Discrepancy no. 6 - Surcharge the trustee their entire fee of $138,468. Discrepancy no. 7 - Unresolved by fifth supplement. Like trustee's response to Discrepancy no. 5, trustee did NOTHING to justify the attorney's fees it paid. This is a breach of fiduciary duty. Previous Notes Attorney's fees equaled $97,495.11 for the accounting period, or $3,249.83 per month. That monthly amount is tempered by the current attorney for trustee's fairly modest fees, compared to those paid to Lori Lewis over a far shorter period of time, all of which are not even accounted for because the accounting period is not far enough back into 2021. There is no explanation why a trust not involved in heavy litigation would need to pay attorney's fees of that magnitude. The fees appear objectively unreasonable on their face, and supplemented billing statements reveal several problems. Recommendation re: resolution to Discrepancy no. 7 - Surcharge the trustee the entire amount paid to attorney Lori Lewis ($81,818.41). Conflict of Interest and Ethics Violations. Trustee makes two admissions that conflict with the billing states submitted by Mullen and Henzell, LLP, and raise ethics questions as a result. The Trustee admits 1) that Trustee did not accept the trustee position until February 3, 2022, and 2) that Ms. Lewis was not retained until "February of 2022." Contrary to those admissions, Ms. Lewis began billing for the issues related to this case as early as May 20, 2021. It is not only apparent from the record that Ms. Lewis and the Trustee were coordinating about the Trust that early in the case, but it is also apparent from the record that the Conservatee lacked the capacity to contract far earlier than that date. It is also apparent from the evidence before the Court that Ms. Lewis was actively advocating to be appointed counsel for the Conservatee, going so far as opposing court appointment of Ms. Hoffman King, all while acting as the attorney for the trustee before February 2022, and even doing so after that date. An attorney representing both a trustee, and an beneficiary lacking legal capacity, violates Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, and also violates the duty of loyalty and confidentiality to both. In addition to the ethical issues above, Ms. Lewis' rates are higher than any approved in the Santa Maria venue of this Court, and her billing statements reveal inappropriate billing practices. For example, her billing statements: Include a "4% administrative charge" that totals thousands of dollars. Include interest charges. Fees for "legal research." Thus, at minimum, Ms. Lewis should be ordered to return all fees she was paid from the trust before February 2022, and for any effort to represent the Conservatee. At maximum, Ms. Lewis should also be ordered to return payments made for the above listed inappropriate billing practices, and hourly rates over $400 per hour for herself, and over $150 per hour for her paralegal. Missing Attorney's Fees to Michelon Vasquez. At Paragraph 14 of the petition to approve the first account of the conservator, "Petitioner and her counsel do not request fees from the Conservatorship estate." From the accounting of the trust, it appears that Conservator was paid, but nowhere in the accounting does it show that Michelon Vasquez was paid for her representation of the Conservator. At the hearing on December 1, 2025, it was revealed that Michelon Vasquez has not yet submitted billing statements to the trust for payment, and does not believe she is accountable to the court for work paid out by the trust. This is legally incorrect, and unjustified by statute, and a century of caselaw. Schedule E - Resolved. This matter, upon further review, is resolved. Schedule E shows a total loss on sale of several securities as $23,689.87, but contains no difference between the proceeds and carry values. [1] Fiduciary was paid $49,150.33, Trustee was paid $54,193.90 (Union Bank) and $84,275.50 (US Bank), Attorneys were paid $15,676.70 (Hussey Dehahn), and $81,818.41 (Lewis/Mullen & Henzel). [2] There are conspicuously no fees in the accounting paid to Conservator's attorney (Michelon Vasquez), and it is unknown what fees have been paid, or will be requested by her at a future date for the accounting period. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Ursula Elisabeth Benham Tentative Ruling: Estate of Ursula Elisabeth Benham Case Number 22PR00317 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances are required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: On April 3, 2026, Roberta Chavez filed a First Amended Petition for Final Distribution. On April 17, 2026, Alexandra Barbara Autuori filed objection to that amended petition, placing the matter at issue and 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.) The following procedural defects with the petition are also noted: Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-120). Despite previous probate notes to the contrary, petitioner consistently refuses to use the mandatory Judicial Counsel forms to send notice to parties in this case. This is sanctionable conduct. (CRC, Rule 2.30.) Notice for this hearing still has not been sent on form DE-120, thus has not satisfied the requirement of Due Process. Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees on the mandated Judicial Council form DE-120, as well as on the Personal Representative (if not the petitioner) and special notice requestors. (Prob. Code, §§ 11601 & 1220.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (§1220.) Rei mbursement requests should be rejected. The petitioner requests reimbursement of $39,339.05 at paragraph 12 of the petition, but those reimbursements appear to be the same claims that were adjudicated in the creditor's claim of Erik Benham that was finalized after evidentiary hearing. A supplement was filed on April 3, 2026, attempting to explain why the claims are similar, and justify the payment of those claims. The Supplement fails to adequately do so. Many of the charges on the itemized list attached to the petition are indistinguishable from claims by Erik Benham that have already been adjudicated. Accounting discrepancies. The accounting still fails to comply with Probate Code section 1060, et seq. requirements for an accounting, and does not balance in the slightest. Credits do not equal Charges, nor are the supporting schedules meaningful or organized in a way to support the summary of account. "Furthermore, failure to provide proper accounting for entrusted funds is cause for discipline whether or not financial loss has ultimately occurred." (See McCray v. State Bar (1985) 38 Cal.3d 257, 270; Fitzsimmons v. State Bar (1983) 34 Cal.3d 327, 331-332.)" (Ridge v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 952, 961.) Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Courtney O'Connor Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Courtney O'Connor Case Number 22PR00336 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/13/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Review: Investigator's Report Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the court at the hearing: Court Investigation Fees are unpaid, and not addressed in the petition. "In cases involving a court investigation, a petition for approval of an account must state the amount of court investigator's assessments that have been paid and any amount due and owing. A receipt for payment must be filed, unless the fiduciary has obtained an order deferring or waiving payment of the assessment." (Local Rule 1741) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Tommy Alton Kingsley Tentative Ruling: Estate of Tommy Alton Kingsley Case Number 22PR00566 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/11/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Appearances required. The following must be submitted: Supplement re: Address Change for Heirs. Three heirs were served notice of this petition at addresses that differ from those listed in the initial Petition for Letters of Administration. Please submit supplement explaining why the service addresses now differ from those previously listed. Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs at the address listed in the initial petition, unless that person changes addresses and that change of address is lodged with the court. (Prob. Code, §§ 11601, 1220, and 8002.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (§1220.) Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the "Filing Description" field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field - BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ). Tentative Ruling: Estate of George Stephen Cochran Tentative Ruling: Estate of George Stephen Cochran Case Number 23PR00491 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Taking into account the "Response" filed on April 20, 2026, and the Declaration filed on April 24, 2026, the following defects persist and must be remedied before the petition may be granted: Amended Final Inventory and Appraisal - The Final Inventory and Appraisal still does not meet the requirements outlined in the Probate Code. There was no attempt to remedy this defect from the last hearing. The issue specifically is as follows: Contain certification that Change in Ownership Statement was filed with county recorder or assessor, unless decedent owned no real property (Prob. Code, 8800, subd. (d)) (i.e. Petitioner must file the appropriate notice indicated in Paragraph 5b, and check that box.) This defect may be remedied via Verified Supplement attesting to the compliance of Change in Ownership Statement with the County Recorder. Amendment to the Petition re: Actions under IAEA. Petitioner alleges at paragraph 17 that Petitioner did not take any action under the IAEA without prior court approval, but then admits at paragraph 29 that the only item of property in the Inventory and Appraisal (a home) was sold, and there is no record that Petitioner sought court confirmation of that sale. An amendment to the petition giving the requisite information was required before the last hearing. No amendment is on file. Amendment to the Petition re: proposed distribution. The proposed distribution differs from the distribution ordered by Decedent's Last Will and Testament. Specifically, there is no request to distribute the residue of Decedent's estate to Michelle Lynn Massey, nor any indication that the music rights indicated in the Last Will and Testament of Decedent have lapsed or adeemed. The Response and Declaration show that the personal representative identified the music rights as a legitimate property and is in the process of marshaling that property. The proposed small estate affidavit procedure may be sufficient for collecting that property in Ms. Massey's estate, but does nothing to remedy the proposed distribution from this estate, which it must flow from first. Supplement re: Escrow Statement. Escrow Statement is still not on file, nor was filed with the Response or Declaration. Because real property was sold, an Escrow Statement must be filed The escrow statement is a requisite filing to satisfy the final report requirements of the Probate Code (Prob. Code, § 10954(c)(1)), and the California Rules of Court (Rule 7.550): Allegations of all actions taken under IAEA, including: sales, purchases, or exchanges of assets (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(2)) changes in the form of assets (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(3)) assets on hand (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(4)) a list of costs of administration, IF reimbursement of administration costs is requested (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(7)) a list of the amount of any fees or commissions paid or to be paid (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(8)), and the calculation of such fees or commissions as described in CRC, Rule 7.705(b) (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(9)) The requirements of Rule 7.550(b) mandate an escrow statement for any sale of real property must be submitted in support of the final report. Supplement re: Preliminary Distribution. Petitioner alleges at paragraph 28 that preliminary distribution of $55,000 was made. The Court did not approve this distribution, nor was any request made to distribute. Probate Code section 10520 grants limited authority to personal representatives with IAEA powers to make preliminary distributions without first seeking the approval of the court. IF 1) the time for filing claims has expired, (i.e., 4 months after letters are issued), and 2) it appears that the distribution may be made without loss to creditors or injury to the estate or any interested person, then 3) after giving notice of proposed action (Prob C §10510) a personal representative may distribute the following: (a) Income received during administration to the persons entitled under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 12000) of Part 10. (b) Household furniture and furnishings, motor vehicles, clothing, jewelry, and other tangible articles of a personal nature to the persons entitled to the property under the decedent's will, not to exceed an aggregate fair market value to all persons of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) computed cumulatively through the date of distribution. Fair market value shall be determined on the basis of the inventory and appraisal. (c) Cash to general pecuniary devisees entitled to it under the decedent's will, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to any one person. (Prob. Code, §10520.) All other preliminary distributions require prior court authorization via petition and a noticed hearing. Petitioner must submit supplement explaining what was distributed, and why that property was not listed in the Final Inventory and Appraisal. There is still no supplement on file explaining this issue. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the "Filing Description" field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field - BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ). Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Bryan Matthew Desjardins Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Bryan Matthew Desjardins Case Number 24PR00296 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Review Hearing re: Change of Venue 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: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Moses Alfaro Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Moses Alfaro Case Number 24PR00359 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Biennial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on May 1, 2028. The Court will give notice of this hearing to all parties. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Matthew Alfaro Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Matthew Alfaro Case Number 24PR00361 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Biennial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on May 1, 2028. The Court will give notice of this hearing to all parties. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Laura Huffman Tentative Ruling: Estate of Laura Huffman Case Number 24PR00502 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/20/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition: Letters Administration Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: High Reserve. Petitioner initially requested $8000 for a reserve amount, then changed that amount to $5,000. That amount is still too high. A high reserve request, especially for unpaid liabilities, creates a presumption that the estate is not in a condition to be closed, which must be overcome by evidence showing the reserve is justified and need not delay distribution of the estate. The following is from a well-respected treatise on this issue: Although not required, it is advisable to include an estimate of closing expenses. Examples of estimated closing expenses include any estate taxes, interest, and penalties that will be paid after distribution; the cost of preparing final income tax returns for the estate; the cost of transferring securities to the distributees; the cost of reasonable storage, delivery, and shipping for distribution of tangible personal property to the distributees; and the cost of certifying and recording copies of the decree of distribution of real property. See Prob C §§11642, 11750, 11753-11754. Some courts require more detailed information about the nature and amount of the anticipated closing expenses. See, e.g., San Francisco Ct R 14.35(I)(3). The personal representative may also wish to retain funds for any undisclosed or unknown liabilities, especially tax deficiencies later assessed against the decedent or the estate. Apart from the reserve for estate taxes, there are some drawbacks to setting the reserve aside specifically for possible future tax deficiencies. Such action indicates--especially if the reserve is a substantial one--misgivings about the validity of the estate's position. The reserve might also be considered a trust fund for payment of the taxes, thus extending the statutory period for assessment. See U.S. v Rose (3d Cir 1965) 346 F2d 985, 989. In addition, if the personal representative requests that the court allow for a substantial reserve (or even a reserve of more than $5,000), some courts will refuse to characterize the distribution as "final" and will require additional accounts (or waivers) before permitting distribution of any balance of the reserve. For example, in Contra Costa County, the court will not characterize the distribution as final if the personal representative requests more than a nominal reserve. If the entire estate will be distributed to a single beneficiary, such as a trust established during the decedent's lifetime, a reserve may not be necessary. (Cal. Dec. Est. Pract. (CEB 2023), §31.66.) Accordingly, if the probable tax liability of the estate is so high as to require the requested amount in reserve, it is recommended the Court deem this estate not to be in a condition to be closed. At the very least, the Court should require a final accounting and petition for distribution be set a reasonable time after the last year's tax liability is due. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Guadalupe Reyes Reyes Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Guadalupe Reyes Reyes Case Number 24PR00675 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/11/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Biennial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on May 8, 2028. The Court will give notice of this hearing to all parties. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Jasmin Grimaldo Bautista Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Jasmin Grimaldo Bautista Case Number 25PR00287 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/13/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Initial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of M Aurora Ruiz Guzman Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of M Aurora Ruiz Guzman Case Number 25PR00406 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Conservatorship Compliance Hearing Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on January 25, 2027. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Imanol Lerena Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Imanol Lerena Case Number 25PR00411 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Initial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on January 25, 2027. Tentative Ruling: Estate of Anita Fay Ivie-Trager Tentative Ruling: Estate of Anita Fay Ivie-Trager Case Number 25PR00424 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/06/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval. Tentative Ruling: Estate of Maria Reyes Lopez Tentative Ruling: Estate of Maria Reyes Lopez Case Number 25PR00493 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Aaron Pantoja Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Aaron Pantoja Case Number 25PR00497 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/06/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Conservatorship Compliance Hearing Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Compliance achieved. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 797 5412 Passcode: 8749009 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Steven Michael Weston Tentative Ruling: Estate of Steven Michael Weston Case Number 25PR00573 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Revoke Full IAEA Authority Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: On March 23, 2026, petitioner filed a petition requesting this Court amend its Order for Probate, made on December 15, 2025. Within that order, Petitioner was appointed the Personal Representative of this intestate estate, and bond was fixed at $1,628,700. The allegations in the petition allege that Petitioner is unable to secure that bond. Probate Code section 10454 gives this Court authority to revoke full IAEA authority upon the petition of "any interested person." Petitioner is such a person, thus has standing to request the revocation of their own powers. Since the court may lower the bond amount pursuant to Probate Code section 10453(b) upon the granting of limited IAEA authority, the Court should do so in this case due to the Petitioner's inability to obtain a bond for the full value of the estate. Therefore, the Petition is recommended for approval, absent objection. Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Jimena M. Gonzalez Torres et al Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Jimena M. Gonzalez Torres et al Case Number 25PR00616 Case Type Guardianship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/27/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Guardian of Person Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Velouria Byers Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Velouria Byers Case Number 25PR00644 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Limited Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following defects must be corrected before the hearing: Proof of Personal Service of Summons. In a conservatorship proceeding, jurisdiction is obtained through personal service of a citation and a copy of the petition for conservatorship upon the proposed conservatee, 15 days before the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1824; Conservatorship of Jones (1986) 188 CA3d 306, 309.) The Proof of Service on file shows service on the conservatee was not only on March 31, 2026, but proof of service was not on the mandatory Judicial Council Form (GC-320), nor was given to the proposed conservatee. Delivery of the Citation must be to the person cited, not a caregiver. (Prob. Code, §1215.) The proposed conservatee is not expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1825(a)(2)[medical inability].) Tentative Ruling: Estate of Mary Colyar Tentative Ruling: Estate of Mary Colyar Case Number 26PR00003 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/13/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Letters of Administration Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The following must be submitted: Attorney Signature. The Petition must be verified by Petitioner (Prob. Code, § 1021) and signed by attorney (CCP, § 128.7). The petition in this case was not signed by the named attorney, and the third supplement does not solve the problem. Please resubmit the petition with the proper signature. Nomination of Administrator. Petitioner does not have priority of administration over Karlfranz Van Baas or Bob Babulas pursuant to Probate Code section 8461. Please submit a nomination from all those with equal or greater priority. There is no written declination on file. 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.) Proposed Letters (Form DE-150). Proposed letters must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the petition. No such document was filed with the court. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the "Filing Description" field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field - BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ). Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Hector Lara Hilario Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Hector Lara Hilario Case Number 26PR00005 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/20/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Conservatorship of the Person Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following must be submitted: Proof of Personal Service of Summons. In a conservatorship proceeding, jurisdiction is obtained through personal service of a citation and a copy of the petition for conservatorship upon the proposed conservatee, 15 days before the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1824; Conservatorship of Jones (1986) 188 CA3d 306, 309.) There is no Proof of Service of the Summons on file. 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: Matter Andrew Alvarez Tentative Ruling: Matter Andrew Alvarez Case Number 26PR00009 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/27/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Review of Acknowledgement and Receipt Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Compliance achieved. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Joel M. Helland Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Joel M. Helland Case Number 26PR00016 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/04/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Conservatorship of the Person and Estate Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The proposed conservatee is not expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1825(a)(2)[medical inability].) Tentative Ruling: Matter of Stornetta Family Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of Stornetta Family Trust Case Number 26PR00023 Case Type Trust Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/06/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Internal Affairs Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Personal Appearances are required. On January 16, 2026, a Petition for Internal Affairs of a Trust was filed by three alleged beneficiaries. On April 30, 2026, an Objection to that petition was filed by Craig L. Stornetta. The Objection places this matter 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.) The following must be submitted before the merits of the case can be adjudicated: 2001 Trust Instrument. A copy of all known iterations of the trust, and all accompanying amendments, must be submitted for review, if petitioner has access to them. (Local Rule, 1791(c).) There is no copy of the original trust (executed in 2001) on file. 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. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the "Filing Description" field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field - BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ). Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Alondra Nicole Valdez Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Alondra Nicole Valdez Case Number 26PR00027 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Mon, 04/27/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Limited Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following defects must be corrected before the hearing: 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.) Tentative Ruling: Matter of the Huseman Community Property Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of the Huseman Community Property Trust Case Number 26PR00052 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/11/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Internal Affairs of a Trust Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Personal Appearances are required. On January 29, 2026, Sara Kerscher filed a Petition for Internal Affairs. That petition was amended and filed on March 24, 2026, and properly served for May 11, 2026, hearing. On April 22, 2026, Beverly Wilson filed a Response to Sara Kerscher's petition. That Response contains requests for relief that conflict with those in the petition, thus places the petition 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.) Parties must come prepared to set discovery deadlines and trial dates. 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. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the "Filing Description" field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field - BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ). Tentative Ruling: Matter of Saulsbury-Gates Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of Saulsbury-Gates Trust Case Number 26PR00054 Case Type Trust Hearing Date / Time Mon, 05/18/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Compel Accounting 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. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Defective Proof of Service of Petition (Form DE-120) . On March 30, 2026, Petitioner Casey Gates filed a Proof of Service of the Notice of Hearing (form DE-120) showing service on three persons occurred on March 27, 2026. The hearing date listed on the Proof of Service is March 30, 2026, making that Proof of Service ineffective. Notice of the hearing on trust matters must be given as follows: At least 30 days before the time set for the hearing on the petition, the petitioner shall cause notice of hearing to be delivered pursuant to Section 1215 to all of the following persons: (1) All trustees. (2) All beneficiaries, subject to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 15800) of Part 3. (3) The Attorney General, if the petition relates to a charitable trust subject to the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. (Prob. Code, § 17203.) Therefore, there has been no due process in this case, and the matter should be continued unless petitioner files a proper Proof of Service of the Notice of Hearing, showing 30 days notice was given.