Petition for Final Distribution
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, Sec.Sec. 11601 & 1220.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (Sec.1220.)
Reimbursement 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: Estate of Tommy Alton Kingsley Tentative Ruling: Estate of Tommy Alton Kingsley Case Number
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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, Sec.Sec. 11601, 1220, and 8002.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (Sec.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).