Probate Notes

Probate Examiners, Anne Holsinger and Michelle Warren, may be reached at Probate.Examiner@stanct.org . Telephone calls can be directed to the Probate Unit as set forth above. Emails must have the case identification information and hearing time/date in the subject line. No attachments will be opened. The Probate Examiner can only respond to inquiries regarding the meaning of comments in the notes. Please do not email to notify that documents have been filed, to request a confirmation whether documents have been received, or to request the clearing of notes. No legal or procedural advice may be given by the Probate Examiner in response to your email.

• It is the goal of the Probate Examiner to have Probate Notes posted five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing.
• Defects described in the Probate Notes must be corrected prior to approval of the moving papers. 
• If you are filing documents to cure technical defects, they should be filed NO LATER THAN FIVE COURT DAYS before the hearing.  Later-filed documents might not be reviewed prior to the hearing and could result in a continuance of your case.

Probate Notes will be updated as needed when late-filed documents are reviewed.  Please note:  Late-filed documents that do not contain the hearing date in the caption require more time and effort to be matched to the files.  This may result in an otherwise avoidable continuance.

Please Note: "Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred)."

This language indicates that no one is required to appear at the hearing.  Probate hearings are open to the public, however, and anyone who wishes to observe a proceeding may do so. Appearances in most cases may be made in person or remotely, by telephone, using VCourt. For more information on how to appear by VCourt, please see the section "Remote Telephonic Hearings" on the home page of this website.
 

POSTED JANUARY 6, 2026
Local Rules of Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus, revisions effective January 1, 2026, are now available for download.

UPDATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2025; POSTED MARCH 5, 2025
Inventory and Appraisals:  An Inventory and Appraisal must be filed in all decedent's estates, conservatorship, and guardianship matters by a date certain pursuant to statute. If the estate has no assets at all as of the date of the appraisal (e.g., the date of decedent's death, or the date of appointment), an Inventory and Appraisal is still required and failure to file the form even when the estate has no value will very likely result in a required court appearance. For more information, those interested are invited to review the California Probate Referee Guide published by the California Probate Referee's Association, which is available for download online.

If more time is needed to marshal the assets, please see California Probate Code section 8800(b) and (c). Failure to file the Inventory and Appraisal by the statutory deadline, or obtain an extension of time, may result in penalties.

If the Inventory and Appraisal has been submitted to the probate referee but not filed prior to the Inventory Review date, the Personal Representative, or their retained counsel, may file a declaration attesting to these facts and provide an anticipated timeframe for filing.  The Court may, in its discretion, continue the Inventory Review hearing without required appearances.

POSTED JULY 15, 2025
Probate customers may view the documents in the court's files online by accessing the Case Search Portal on the court's website. Access to view confidential documents remains restricted.

POSTED DECEMBER 16, 2024
Please visit the new Probate Examiner's Corner section of the Probate Division webpage where you will find news, reminders, and guides!

POSTED SEPTEMBER 29, 2022, UPDATED 12/02/22

• Please help expand the list of qualified counsel willing to accept appointment in Probate matters, as either court-appointed counsel in Conservatorships pursuant to PrC§1471, Guardians ad litem, successor personal representatives in decedents' estates, and successor trustees. 

• For appointment as counsel in a Conservatorship, please see the list of qualifications and requirements found in California Rule of Court 7.1103 and 7.1105.

• Review forms PR004, PR005, and GC-010 available for download on the Common Forms & Packets page here: https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/forms-filing/common-forms-packets for more information.  Remit your completed forms to the Superior Court.

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2026

Department 22
8:30 a.m.

PR-19-000044 ESTATE OF PATRICIA ANN FERNANDEZ
Account Review Hearing:
PrC §12200 Status Report filed and set for hearing 07/30/26. 
Hearing of 07/30/26 will be confirmed.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-23-000646 ESTATE OF ROSEMARIE DEJONG
Discharge Review Hearing:
See Local Rule 8.92. 
Receipts of distribution not yet on file [see Pr. Code section 11753(b)].
Form DE-295, Ex Parte Petition for Final Discharge and Order, has been submitted, but was returned for corrections on 06/24/26.
Recommend continuance to 08/20/26 to allow time to submit corrected pleading.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).
 

PR-23-001303 ESTATE OF VELMA ELAINE ADAMS, AKA ELAINE ADAMS, ELAINE WEST ADAMS, ELAINE W. ADAMS
Discharge Review Hearing:
Receipts on distribution not on file.
Ex Parte Petition for Final Discharge not yet submitted.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-24-000307 ESTATE OF JUSTIN BRASIEL
Discharge Review Hearing:
Ex Parte Petition for Final Discharge not yet submitted.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-24-001217 ESTATE OF TAR ROTERMUND
Account Review Hearing continued from 05/20/26:
The current bond is $50,000.00.
Receipt of deposit of funds into blocked account is on file, reflecting that only $75,000.00 of the $315,355.78 sale proceeds received by seller (as reflected in the escrow statement attached to the 05/21/26 Declaration filed by the personal representative) were deposited into a blocked account as the court had ordered at the hearing on confirmation of the sale, which therefore left $190,355.78 of the sale proceeds unprotected.
According to the 05/21/26 Declaration, “$173,135.70 was used to pay off the mortgage on the home the beneficiaries live in.” That appears to have been an unauthorized distribution, which is grounds for surcharge and removal.
•    This is a red flag for fraud and embezzlement at worst and estate mismanagement at best. Who owns the property with the paid off mortgage? The beneficiaries were all alleged to be children in the original petition for probate, and therefore could not own property, so the mortgage payoff would appear to benefit not the children but the person who owns the property where the children reside. How is that person related to the co-administrators?
Recommend court issue an Order to Show Cause to the co-administrators and their counsel to appear and show cause why the court should not order them to prepare a First Account Current, why the court should not surcharge them each one-half of $190,355.78 in order to make the estate whole, why the court should not remove them from office and appoint the Public Administrator as Special Administrator pending appointment of a successor personal representative.
Recommend court suspend the co-administrators pending hearing on the Order to Show Cause.
Appearance by co-administrators and counsel mandatory; counsel may not appear for the co-administrators (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-001101 MATTER OF MATTHEW EOFF, OR MATTER OF DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF RUFUS SANTOS, PRINCIPAL
Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions:
SEE TENTATIVE RULING, to be posted day prior to hearing at https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/…

Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions:
SEE TENTATIVE RULING, to be posted day prior to hearing at https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/…

Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions:
SEE TENTATIVE RULING, to be posted day prior to hearing at https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/…

PR-26-000222 ESTATE OF LILA JENNIE RUIZ
(1)    Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration (filed by Francine McLean) continued from 04/23/26:  
Requested bond of $350,000.00 appears adequate based on estimated value of estate alleged in the petition.

(2)    Hearing on competing Petition for Letters of Administration (filed by Frank Martinez):
Response and Objection filed – 06/02/26 (by Francine McLean)
Reply and Supplemental Reply filed – 06/12/26 and 06/16/26 (by Frank Martinez)
•    Proof of Electronic Service of Notice of Intent to Request Continuance reflects a copy was served to petitioner and her attorney by email; however, Notice of Consent to Electronic Service not on file for any parties or attorneys. Examiner notes, the pleading also included a proof of service by mail. 

Requested bond of $400,000.00 appears adequate based on estimated value of estate alleged in the petition.
The following must be addressed in the Petition (Form DE-111):
•    Item 5(7) or (8) incomplete (issue of predeceased child).
•    Item 8 omitted the name and date of death of decedent’s predeceased spouse.  Item 5(2)(b) indicates decedent’s spouse is deceased.
•    Item 8 did not properly label the personal representative pursuant to Local Rule 8.26D.  Example, Petitioner is both the decedent’s son and the proposed personal representative.
The following must be addressed in the Court’s file:
•    Affidavit of publication not on file. See Local Rule 8.12.
•    Forms DE-140 and DE-150, Proposed Order and Letters, not submitted.
Consider visiting the California Courts Self Help page at https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/probate and downloading forms from https://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm

Petitioner Frank Martinez’s Intent to Request Continuance (file marked 06/22/26) submitted to Judge for determination.
Appearances required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-19-001177 ESTATE OF JOHN LEE PEELER, AKA JOHN L. PEELER, JOHN PEELER             
Hearing on Fifth PrC§12200 Status Report of Administration:
The Report reflects the personal representative has reversed course and is now undertaking to have the real property in Ceres sold.
Recommend court allow estate to remain open and set a further Account Review Hearing 04/06/27. 
Recommend court instruct the personal representative that, if a Petition for Final Distribution is not on file by the next hearing, the personal representative is to prepare and file a sixth PrC§12200 Status Report with the status of the sale of the Ceres residence and the status of the vacant property in Mariposa, and that if neither Petition nor Report are on file, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause to the personal representative why she should not be removed from office purs. to PrC§8502.
Appearance not required. (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-24-000916 ESTATE OF BETH KINCAID
Hearing on First and Final Account and Report of Personal Representative; for Waiver of Account; for Allowance of Statutory Compensation to Personal Representative’s Attorneys, and for Final Distribution of the Estate:
Notes cured.
Recommend approval of petition.
Recommend Discharge Review Hearing 12/17/26 pursuant to Local Rule 8.92.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000653 ESTATE OF MARIA OTILIA ROBERTSHAW, AKA MARIA O. ROBERTSHAW, MARIA ROBERTSHAW
Hearing on First and Final Report of Executor on Waiver of Account and Petition for Allowance of Compensation to Attorney for Ordinary Services, and for Final Distribution:
Recommend approval of Report and Petition.
Recommend court vacate Account Review Hearing of 11/03/26.
Recommend Discharge Review Hearing 12/17/26 pursuant to Local Rule 8.92.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).
 

PR-26-000426 ESTATE OF MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ORTEGA
Hearing on Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary:
Defects in the Petition (Form DE-111) which must be addressed:
•    Item 3h(3) incomplete (resident of U.S.).
•    Item 3h(7) or (8) incomplete (existence of issue of predeceased child).
•    Item 8 omitted the name and date of death of decedent’s predeceased spouse.
•    Item 8 must include the relationships of all those listed to the decedent.
•    Item 8 did not include the proposed personal representative (Local Rule 8.26 D).
•    Item 8 must include names as they are written in the Will; AKA’s may be used to identify the correct individuals.
•    Four of the five heirs listed in Item 8 reflect “address unknown” in Mexico. There is no verified pleading on file describing the efforts the petitioner has made to locate / serve notice on these heirs.
See California Rules of Court rules 7.3 and 7.53 to learn about the types of forms that may be used to address these defects.

Defects in the file:
•    Will was not witnessed. Declaration re: supporting evidence not on file. See PrC§§8221, 6110.
•    It appears the original Will has not yet been presented in person to the Clerk’s Office for filing.  Original Wills are not accepted via E-file.  See Local Rule 1.14G and the Court’s website:  www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/forms-filing/e-filing.
•    Form DE-121 Notice of Petition to Administer Estate not on file.
•    Affidavit of publication not on file. 
•    Form DE-140, Proposed Order, not yet submitted.

Consider visiting the California Courts Self Help page at
https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/probate and downloading forms from https://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm

Appearance by petitioner (self-represented) required (Anyone wishing to appear remotely, may do so by telephone, using VCourt). 

PR-26-000428 ESTATE OF HELEN PHINNY
Letters of Special Administration will expire today if not extended
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration:
Examiner notes your documents were submitted reflecting an incorrect address for the Court. Please note, the correct physical and mailing address of the clerk’s office is: 801 10th Street, 4th Floor, Modesto, CA 95354. Please ensure future filings indicate the correct address.
Waivers of Bond on file for all intestate heirs.
•    Petition item 8 did not properly label the proposed personal representative (Local Rule 8.26 D).  For future filings, please include this information.
•    Form DE-150, Letters, not yet submitted.
Recommend approval of petition.
Recommend Inventory Review Hearing 01/06/27 pursuant to Local Rule 8.41 B.
Appearance not required. (By VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000435 ESTATE OF ROBERT WILLIAM STENGER
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration:
•    Petition item 2d was left blank (request regarding either bond or blocked account). 
•    Item 3d (the character and estimated value of the property of this estate) was completed with all zeroes (“0”). 
    o    Depending on the value of the estate property, formal probate may not be necessary. Please review Probate Code sections 890, 13000 et seq, and visit the California Self Help website (link at the bottom of this Note).
•    Petition item 3e was not completed (reasons why a bond would not be required).
•    Form DE-121 Notice of Petition to Administer Estate not on file.
•    Affidavit of publication not on file. See Local Rule 8.12.

Consider visiting the California Courts Self Help page at
https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/probate and downloading forms from https://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm
Appearance by petitioner (self-represented) required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000475 MATTER OF LEONA J. ASH TRUST DTD 9/18/1997
Hearing on Petition for Conveyance or Transfer of Property Claimed to Belong to Estate:
• Please provide a copy of the Letters of Administration for the Estate of Michelle Janson; if the Letters were issued by another county, the copy must be notarized.
• Please provide copies of the death certificates for Leona Ash and Michele Janson.
• Are Michele Janson and Michelle Janson the same person? Different spellings are used throughout the petition, while the exhibits are consistent in the use of one “l” in Janson’s first name.
• Are Leona I. Ash and Leona J. Ash the same person? The petition uses the middle initial J. throughout, while the exhibits are consistent in the use of middle initial I.
• The paragraphs on page 2 of the petition are numbered out of sequence, which complicated the preparation of these Probate Notes.
• Paragraphs 4 on page 1 and 9 on page 3 do not agree as to the nature of the relationship between Trustor/Trustee Leona Ash and the alleged initial successor Trustee Betty Castro. 
• Paragraph 9 on page 3 mischaracterizes Exhibit 3; the affidavit attached as Exhibit 3 was executed not by Betty Castro but by Michele Janson and was recorded (not filed) after the death of Betty Castro, not after the death of Leona Ash.
• The petition appears to substantially lack foundation, however petitioner alleges that the appropriate foundational evidence (a copy of the Leona J. Ash Trust, notices of changes of trustee) have not been and cannot be located.
      o    What efforts did the petitioner make to locate any of the missing documents? 
      o What was the Trustor’s last known residence, and when did petitioner search it for the records? See petition paragraph 2.
      o Did the petitioner search through the records of either Betty Castro or Michele Janson? 
      o Did petitioner attempt contact with the notary who acknowledged the Quitclaim Deed recorded by Leona Ash on 09/18/1997 (the same date of her purported Trust)? See Exhibit 2.
      o Did petitioner attempt contact with the notary who acknowledged the Affidavit of Death of Trustee recorded by Michele Janson on 12/24/24? See Exhibit 3.
• Exhibit 3, the Affidavit of Death of Trustee recorded by Michele Janson in 2025, and Exhibit 1, the Quitclaim Deed by which petitioner alleges the successor Trustee Michele Janson transferred title from the Trust to herself as an individual, are the sole evidence offered that Michele Janson is a rightful beneficiary of the Leona I. Ash Trust, that either Betty Castro or Michele Janson were successor Trustees, and that Michele Janson had authority to convey the real property to herself. Unfortunately, those documents contain discrepancies that complicate an already clouded title issue: 
      o Exhibit 3, the Affidavit of Death of Trustee, identifies Michele Janson and Betty Castro as the Trustors who executed the Leona I. Ash Trust and any Amendments thereto, rather than Leona I. Ash. 
      o The notary acknowledgement on page 2 of Exhibit 1, the Quitclaim Deed, has a section crossed out, indicating that someone, either the notary or Michele Janson herself, struck out language identifying Michele Janson as the successor Trustee of the Leona I. Ash Trust.
Recommend court discuss these foundational issues with counsel prior to continuing the matter to allow time to cure defects.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).
 

PR-26-000503 ESTATE OF ANA CARDENAS
Hearing on Petition to Determine Succession:
•    Part of petition item 17 was completed, indicating that the decedent’s estate may have been under either a guardianship or a conservatorship at the time of decedent’s death. Please clarify.
•    Proof of mailing not on file for the Department of Health Care Services, nor Declaration that notice is not required (see Local Rule 8.17 and PrC§215).
Recommend continuance to 07/31/26 to allow time to cure defects.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2026
Department 22 
There are no decedent’s estates or trusts on calendar

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2026
Department 22 
There are no decedent's estates or trusts on calendar

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2025
Department 22 
There are no decedent's estates or trusts on calendar

WEDNESDAY, JULY 01, 2025
Department 22 
There are no decedent's estates or trusts on calendar

THURSDAY, JULY 02, 2026

Department 21
8:30 a.m.

PR-22-001064 ESTATE OF CLARA CONSTANCE NUNES, AKA CLARA C. NUNES
Order to Show Cause issued 06/22/26 to Rickie James Perry:
To appear and show cause for failure to appear at the 06/22/26 hearing.
Appearance required (by VCourt if preferred).

Department 22
8:30 a.m.
There are no matters on calendar in Department 22

FRIDAY, JULY 03, 2025
COURT HOLIDAY