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.

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026

Department 21
8:30 a.m.

PR-23-000109 MATTER OF THE LEO LANDUCCI AND PATRICIA LANDUCCI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF 2007
Fee Waiver Hearing:
Appearance by Stephen Landucci (self-represented) mandatory. Anyone appearing at this hearing may do so either in person or remotely, by telephone, using VCourt.

Department 22
8:30 a.m.

PR-18-000116 ESTATE OF GUADALUPE A. OROZCO, AKA LUPE OROZCO   
1.    Hearing on Petition for Surcharge and Sanctions Against Samuel Orozco, et al., and Reimbursement to Rebecca Orozco for Estate Attorney Services Paid continued from 01/13/26, 05/05/26:
Notice has been perfected. 
•    On 05/05/26, the court ordered petitioner, Rebecca Orozco, to choose one of her three (3) nearly identical “Supplements” filed on 01/08/26, 01/12/26, 01/21/26, serve it, and thereafter file a proof of service with the exact pleading title AS WELL AS the file-mark date of the Supplement of which parties were served copies, or the court would not consider the Supplement. As of 06/18/26, the petitioner has not filed complied. The Notice of Hearing file-marked 06/08/26 does not include the file-mark date of the Supplement, so the court cannot know which of the three (3) nearly identical supplements was served on the parties. Recommend court not consider any of the three supplements, finding that they are ex parte.
•    Proposed Order submitted 01/12/26 did not include court’s finding regarding notice. See PrC§1260.
Opposition filed – 12/23/25, by Samuel Orozco, Sr., Paul Orozco, Samuel Orozco, Jr., and Jeremy Orozco.
Request for Judicial Notice filed – 12/23/25.
Response to Opposition filed – 01/06/26, by petitioner, Rebecca Orozco.
•    Proof of service of Response is not on file.

2.    Hearing on Petition for 1) Approval of Second and Final Account and Report of Personal Representative; 2) Approval of Payment of Statutory Compensation to Personal Representative and Counsel; 3) Approval of Payment of Extraordinary Compensation to Personal Representative and Counsel; 4) Approval of Reimbursement to Personal Representative and Counsel for Costs; 5) Instructions and Orders on Payment of Fees Based on Court’s Prior Orders; 6) Instructions and Orders on Payment of Outstanding Legal Fees by Prior Counsels; 7) Instructions and Order on Reimbursement to Rebecca Orozco for Costs; 8) Instructions and Order on Surcharge to Samuel Orozco (or, Alternatively, Against All Adversarial Beneficiaries); 9) Approval of Withholding of $2,500 for Reserve; 10) Settlement of Estate and Order for Final Distribution; 11) Order on Release of Funds from Blocked Account; 12) Order Approving Payment of Receivables; and 13) Discharge of Personal Representative and Exoneration of Bond Upon Filing of Receipts and Application for Discharge:
More time is needed for review; pleadings (petition, objection, and declarations in support of both) total more than 400 pages.

Both matters will be continued to 07/09/26 to allow time for review. 
No appearance required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-001148 JOHN AND LUPE OROZCO FAMILY TRUST
Hearing on Petition for Instructions and for Approval of Reimbursement of Attorney’s Fees and Costs from Trust Principal; Request for Offsets, Discretionary Allocation of Taxable Costs, Accounting-Coordination Directive, and Ancillary Relief (filed by Samuel R. Orozco, Co-Trustee) continued from 02/25/26, 04/15/26, 05/05/26:
Objection filed – 06/09/263 (by Henry Orozco)
Reply to Opposition filed – 06/12/26 (by Samuel R. Orozco)
Prior defects cured by supplement.
Request that court take Judicial Notice of related case PR-18-000116 submitted to Judge for determination.
Hearing required.
Appearances required. (by VCourt if preferred)

PR-19-000552 ESTATE OF DOUGLAS BERNARD PIERCE
(1)    Order to Show Cause issued 02/11/26 to Mark J. Reichel, Esq.:
To appear and show cause why court should not dismiss this petition for failure to appear at the 02/11/26 hearing, failure to file pleadings as directed, failure to perfect notice, failure to cure defects.

(2)    Hearing on Petition and Statement of Facts to Recover Money or Property on Deposit in Treasury (filed by Nighthawk Investigations) continued from 03/05/25, 06/05/25, 10/21/25, 02/11/26:
Nothing filed since last hearing. Prior notes remain:
•    Notice of Hearing not on file.
•    Assignments of Interest must be notarized and filed separately, not attached to any other pleading. See Local Rule 8.87 and PrC§11604. 
•    Assignment of Interest not on file for intestate heir: Catherine Pierce. 
•    Petition is not verified.
•    It appears the Court has not been provided with a 13100 Affidavit signed by the parties as to the share from Brian’s estate.
•    Division of interest does not appear to be correct.  It should be divided as follows: ½ to Catherine, 1/6 of the total amount at issue to first child, 1/6 to second, and 1/6 to Nighthawk.  The calculation of 1/3 to Nighthawk is incorrect.
If Petitioner disagrees with this division, please provide a memorandum of points & authorities for the Court’s review.
Need status of prior notes.
Declaration of Third Party, Larry King, (file marked 02/06/26) requesting that the Court authorize its contractual share to be deducted from Nighthawk’s payment appears insufficient.  Mr. King has not formally objected or filed a noticed petition.  Matter submitted to Judge for determination.
Recommend court dismiss this petition for failure to cure defects as directed.
Appearance by counsel required.  (Anyone wishing to appear may do so in person or by telephone, using VCourt).

PR-24-000911 ESTATE OF RADELLA MARIE REYES
Account Review Hearing:
A Petition for Final Distribution has been filed and set for hearing 08/20/26.
Hearing of 08/20/26 will be confirmed.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000138 ESTATE OF WALTER EDWARD CLIFFORD, AKA WALTER CLIFFORD
Account Review Hearing:
Petition for Final Distribution has been filed and set for hearing on 08/19/26.
Hearing of 08/19/26 will be confirmed.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000197 ESTATE OF GILBERT CHARLES LONG
Inventory Review Hearing continued from 02/18/26:
Nothing filed since previous hearing. 
Letters were issued 02/11/26. Final Inventory and Appraisal was due 06/11/26.
Final Inventory and Appraisal not on file. See Local Rule 8.41 B, Probate Code section 8800 et seq.
Consider visiting the California Courts Self Help “inventory” page at
https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/probate/inventory-estimate-value and downloading forms from https://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm and please review your responsibilities in the Duties and Liabilities, Form DE-147, you signed and filed.
Appearance by Executor (self-represented) required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000607 ESTATE OF AARON SCOTT BOONE
Order to Show Cause issued 04/28/26 to counsel for personal representative: 
Order to Show Cause will be discharged as the attorney filed a verified pleading alleging that the current bond is sufficient.

Inventory Review Hearing continued from 04/28/26:
•    Prior Note remains: A Corrected I&A appears required: Date of decedent’s death does not conform to the Order for Probate or Petition for Probate.
Recommend court set Account Review Hearing 06/08/27 pursuant to Local Rule 8.87. 
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000955 ESTATE OF MERRY C. ROCHE, AKA MERRY CAROL ROCHE
Hearing on Petition to Establish Estate’s Claim of Ownership to Property, and for Order Directing its Transfer to Estate continued from 01/08/26, 04/16/26:
Nothing filed since the previous hearing.
At the hearing on 04/16/26, the court ordered petitioner to address the legal relationship between petitioner and decedent, petitioner’s own trust, jurisdiction, venue, and standing. The more particular explanation of the defects were detailed in the prior notes:
•    Petition does not address jurisdiction or venue. See PrC§17005.
•    Petition does not assert petitioner’s standing to bring this action. See PrC§850.
o    Please provide points and authorities regarding petitioner’s authority, as the decedent’s surviving (or former, see note below) spouse, to effectuate a transfer of the asset as prayed for, if the court were to grant the petition. Petitioner is not the personal representative of the decedent’s estate and there appears to be no (other) appropriate transferee.
o    Please file a verified supplement clarifying the petitioner’s legal relationship to the decedent at the time of her passing, as the Objector has alleged that the petitioner and decedent were divorced; the petition portrays the decedent’s estate plan as that of a wife intending to give all of her property to her husband (paragraph 3.l); and the decedent’s will describes the petitioner as her former spouse. If a Judgment of Dissolution was entered after the will was executed, please review PrC§6122.
•    Petitioner has filed a verified Declaration which included an allegation that he neither has recollection of the existence of any trust created by the decedent, nor of having discussed the creation, execution, or terms of such a trust with her. Please consider preparing a verified Supplement to address the verbiage in Exhibit A’s Deed that indicates that petitioner created his own Trust on the same date as decedent’s (non-existent) Trust. Did petitioner create a Trust? Was his Trust executed on or around the date as described in the Deed? Who prepared his Trust for him? Was it acknowledged by a notary? 
Objection filed – 12/31/25, by S. Vegas. 
Recommend court set deadline for petitioner to cure defects re: jurisdiction, venue, or case may be dismissed. 
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-001122 ESTATE OF PETER OSTERHOLM
Hearing on Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence continued from 02/10/26:
Nothing filed since last hearing. Prior notes remain:
•    Notice of Hearing file-marked 01/30/25 appears defective, in that the filer used Form DE-115 and not Form DE-120. Form DE-115 gives notice that the petition was filed under Probate Code section 850, which is not correct for this matter. See PrC§§13655, 1220.
•    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).
•    The property is alleged to be for “special recreational use.”  If so, this petition does not appear appropriate. Please provide additional detail in Attachment 11 to satisfy petition item 11(2) (facts that show the property was decedent’s primary residence in California).
•    Please provide additional detail in Attachment 11 to satisfy petition item 11(3) (facts that show the asset was decedent’s separate property). A copy of the current recorded grant deed was not attached. See Local Rule 8.99.
Need status.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-001156 HECTOR R. ZELAYA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
Hearing on Petition for Return of Property (Probate Code §850); for Double Damages (Probate Code §859); Quiet Title; Cancellation of Deed (CC §3412); Fraud; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Conversion; to Impose Constructive Trust; Unjust Enrichment; and Financial Elder Abuse (WIC §15610.30); for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs continued from 02/11/26:
•    This petition appears to plead independent civil causes of action.  Proof of service of Civil Summons is not on file.  (CCP §§412.20, 413.10 et seq, PrC §1000).  Matter of independent civil causes of action in a probate petition submitted to judge for determination.
•    Lis pendens not on file (CCP § 761.010(b)).
On 02/11/26, the Court ordered counsel to provide Points and Authorities within 10 days prior to today’s hearing if petitioner wishes to proceed with the civil matters as a probate case.  Points and Authorities not on file at time of review.
Appearances required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000001 ESTATE OF DOLORES MARIE CORLEY
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration continued from 02/18/26:

Petitioner filed a second Petition on 05/26/26; the document is not labeled “Amended”. Submit to court’s determination whether to deem the pleading a First Amended Petition for Letters of Administration, or to require the petitioner to file an document labeled “Amended” Petition.

Defects in the second petition filed 05/26/26:
•    Heading of petition page 1 omitted box in checkmark “Authorization to Administer Under the Independent Administration of Estates Act”.
•    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).
•    Item 5a(2)(a) or (b) was not completed (reason why decedent was not survived by a spouse, i.e. either the decedent was never married or was divorced, or the decedent’s spouse died before the decedent).
•    Item 8 omitted the relationships all those listed had with the decedent.
•    Affidavit of publication file-marked 06/08/26 contains the following defects:
o    The left-hand margin of the document is cut off, leaving much of the document illegible.
o    The affidavit reflects that the first date of publication was 05/15/26, which is prior to the date the second Petition was filed. Even if the court were to deem the second Petition an amended Petition, the published notice would be untimely pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 7.53.
o    The notice published did not include petitioner’s request for authority under the Independent Administration of Estates Act.
•    Forms DE-140 and DE-150, Proposed Order and Letters, not submitted.

Waivers of bond on file from intestate heirs, however personal representative resides out of state. See PrC§8571. Bond may be required at the court’s discretion. Submitted to court for determination.
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-26-000022 ESTATE OF MERRY C. ROCHE, AKA MERRY CAROL ROCHE
Hearing on Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary (filed by William J. Roche) continued from 02/18/26:
Will is self-proving.
Response and Objection filed - 05/01/26 (by Sheree Vegas)
Opposition filed - 05/01/26 (by Judith Brown)  *Filing fee not paid*
Opposition filed - 05/01/26 (by Adam Maisel)  *Filing fee not paid*
Opposition filed - 05/01/26 (by Mike Maisel)    *Filing fee not paid*
Opposition filed - 05/01/26 (by James Maisel) *Filing fee not paid*
Opposition filed - 05/01/26 (by Rick Freeman) *Filing fee not paid*
Hearing required.
Appearances required (by VCourt if preferred).
 

PR-26-000177 MATTER OF PATRICK HEANEY REVOCABLE TRUST
Status Review Hearing on singular issue of the second cause of action in Petition file-marked 03/26/26, set per ruling issued 06/11/26:
Need status of meet-and-confer.
Appearance by counsel and the self-represented Objectors required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-22-001064 ESTATE OF CLARA CONSTANCE NUNES, AKA CLARA C. NUNES
Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record filed by petitioner’s counsel, Ben Rowe, Esq.:
SEE TENTATIVE RULING, to be posted day prior to hearing at https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/…

PR-25-000328 ESTATE OF VINCENT JOSEPH WILEY
Hearing on First and Final Report of Executor, Waiver of Accounting, Petition for Settlement Hereof, and for Final Distribution:
Recommend approval of petition as supplemented.
Recommend Discharge Review Hearing 12/17/26 pursuant to Local Rule 8.92.
Recommend court vacate Account Review Hearing 11/10/26.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000392 ESTATE OF DOROTHY SUE MILLER
Hearing on Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence:
•    A copy of the current recorded grant deed was not attached. See Local Rule 8.99.
Recommend continuance to 07/24/26 to allow time to cure defects.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000395 ESTATE OF BERNARDO TORRES-PIMENTEL, AKA BERNARDO TORRES PIMENTEL
Hearing on Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence:
If no one appears to object, recommend court find notice complete and approve the petition.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000396 ESTATE OF MAX WAYLON EDMISTON
Hearing on Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary:
Will is self-proving.
•    Petition item 8 must include names as they are written in the Will; AKA’s may be used to identify the correct individuals.
•    Notice of Hearing omitted one of the heirs; specifically, Any Melton Edmiston.
Recommend continuance to 07/24/26 to allow time to cure defects.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).
 

PR-26-000398 ESTATE OF LLOYD K. INGRAM, AKA LLOYD K. INGRAM, JR.
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration:
Waivers of bond [Form DE-142/DE-111(A-3e)] on file.  
•    Examiner notes one of the heirs of this estate is a conservatee and her conservator has signed a bond waiver. Conservators of the estate do not have power to waive bond. A guardian ad Litem may be necessary.  Bond matter submitted to Judge for determination.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000400 ESTATE OF ALEJO SILVA
Hearing on Spousal Property Petition:
If no one appears to object, Recommend approval of Petition.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000473 MATTER OF REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT OF GARY R. VANCE AND MAUREEN ELIZABETH VANCE
Hearing on Petition for Order to Determine Title to Personal Property:
Informational note from Probate Examiner, not a defect: A pour-over will does not prove that the testator intended an asset to belong to the Trust during testator’s life, as a pour-over will, as in the nature of all wills, only reflects testator’s plan for his or her estate after death. The probate court considers a pour-over will as evidence of the absence of an alternate plan for the specific property; in other words, a pour-over will shows the court that the decedent did not devise the specific property elsewhere, it does not serve as evidence that a trustor intended his or her property to belong to a Trust during his or her life. 
• Exhibit 6 is described by petitioner as a pour-over will. That does not appear correct, as the attached will named the petitioner as an individual as sole devisee of the entirety of the testator’s estate, and named the Trust as contingent devisee only if the petitioner were not living at the time of testator’s death.
• It doesn’t appear that the decedent’s will was lodged with the clerk of this county. Was it lodged in a different court? If not, where is the original will?
• Petition paragraph VI alleges that this county is the proper venue based on the “corporation principal place of administration”; please clarify where the Trustee resides (“principal place of administration of the trust”). See PrC§17005(a)(1).
• Exhibit 1: “Schedule ‘A’” of the Restated Trust was not included; the Restated Trust identifies Schedule A as a list of all assets to be made part of the Trust.
•    The petition does not identify other potential persons entitled to notice:
      o    the decedent’s intestate heirs.
      o    statement if probate proceedings have commenced in any other jurisdiction.
      o    surviving co-owners of the asset and/or officers who may be shareholders.
• Neither the petition nor prayer appear sufficiently specific as to the decedent’s particular interest in the personal property. Can petitioner identify the number/class of decedent’s shares or specify the interest in some other way?
• How did the decedent’s partnership interests convert into specific corporate shares upon incorporation? Did the decedent receive stock? Were there any later transfers?
• The prayer seeks confirmation of “all [decedent’s] rights… dividends, voting rights”; is petitioner aware of any transfer restrictions in the bylaws or articles of incorporation?
• The petition does not appear to offer an argument, or any proof in support thereof (other than the allegation that the decedent’s will is a pour-over will), that the decedent/trustor intended, prior to his death, to include the personal property in his Trust. It does not appear that petitioner has shown that the Trustee has a claim to the at-issue property purs. to PrC§850.
• Notice of Hearing forms file-marked 05/12/26 and 05/20/26 do not appear compliant with PrC§§851(c)(1) or (3). Please see Judicial Council Form DE-115, adopted for mandatory use for this purpose pursuant to PrC§851(c).
• Proposed Order does not agree entirely: paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 2 of the order are phrased as though the entire corporation belonged to the decedent and is ordered confirmed as an asset of the Trust and transferred to the Trustee; the prayer sought confirmation of only decedent’s interest in the corporation.
Recommend continuance to 09/30/26 to allow time to cure defects.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

9:30 a.m.

PR-25-000508 TRAMMELL 1998 TRUST DTD JUNE 11, 1998, AS AMENDED – THE BYPASS TRUST
Court Trial (1-2 day estimate) continued from 05/19/26:
Appearances mandatory.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2026

Department 23
8:30 a.m.

PR-23-000725 ESTATE OF ANNA LETTIE MEVERDEN
Hearing on First and Final Account of Administrator and Petition for Allowance of Compensation to Attorney for Ordinary and Extraordinary Services and to Administrator for Ordinary Services and for Final Distribution:
•    Proposed omnibus clause appears ambiguous: would direct distribution of later-discovered assets (after full satisfaction of the creditor) to decedent’s heirs equally, including the heirs of a predeceased child and predeceased grandchild, which does not appear correct. See PrC§240. 
Recommend court approve the Account and Petition with the modification of modifying the omnibus clause to read: 
100% to DHS until their creditor’s claim is paid in full. Following distribution 
pursuant to this Petition, the outstanding balance is $102,591.92. Should the 
DHS claim be paid in full, any additional property not now known or 
discovered should be distributed equally between Decedent’s heirs in the proportions provided by Probate Code sections 6402 and 240.
If recommendation is adopted, counsel to submit a new proposed Order.
Recommend Discharge Review Hearing 12/17/26 pursuant to Local Rule 8.92.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

Department 22
8:30 a.m.

PR-21-000186 ESTATE OF BONIFACIO ARSE TOBAR, AKA BONIFACIO TOBAR
Account Review Hearing:
•    Neither Petition for Final Distribution nor PrC§12200 Status Report are on file at the time of review.  See Local Rule 8.82. 
Recommend court order personal representative to file a PrC§12200 Status Report (with Notice pursuant to PrC§12201) within 90 days if estate is not in a position to be closed.
Recommend continuance to 10/28/26 to allow time for filing of above pleadings. 
If neither pleading is on file by the next hearing date, the court may issue an order to show cause for personal representative to appear pursuant to PrC§12202.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-22-000667 ESTATE OF JENNIFER LYNN DUNN
Hearing on Petition for Final Distribution of Estate on Waivers of Accounting; First and Final Report of Administrator continued from 04/23/26:
Nothing filed since previous hearing. Prior Notes remain:
•    No waivers of accounting are yet on file. Pursuant to Local Rule 8.69, account waivers must be notarized.
•    Notice of Hearing not on file (PrC §§ 10830, 11000, 11601).
•    Report paragraph 5 (description of creditor claims and their disposition):
    o    Did not include the Claim filed by UMB Bank on 09/12/22 for $1,746.74 or the second Claim filed by Synchrony Bank on 10/03/22 for $207.05.
    o    Did not report the action the personal representative took on the claims except for the claim by ALLY Bank (see Local Rule 8.83 B).
    o    Of the three Creditor’s Claims filed in this matter which Report identified and the two Creditor’s Claims which the Report did not address (see note above), there has been neither a notice of withdrawal filed by the     creditor nor a Form DE-174, Allowance or Rejection, filed in this matter by the personal representative. See California Rules of Court rule 7.401. 
    Notice of Hearing appears required for above four creditors (ALLY Bank, UMB Bank, SYNCHRONY Bank, AT&T UVERSE). See Probate Code §§ 48, 9250, 11640, 11429; California Rules of Court rule 7.401.
•    The will included a specific bequest of personal property (to J. Chapman Lucas). The Petition does not explain why those assets were not included in the Inventory and Appraisal. 
    o    Notice of Hearing will be required on that beneficiary.
•    Neither the petition, prayer, nor the attached Exhibit A (described as “The Property on Hand Available for Distribution and the Proposed Distribution schedules”) reflect the specific amount of cash to be distributed to each residual beneficiary.
Recommend court set deadline for the Executor to cure the defects or surcharge may be imposed.
Appearance by Executor (self-represented) mandatory (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-22-000843 ESTATE OF JAMES ARNOLD PAIONI, AKA JAMES A. PAIONI, JIM A. PAIONI
Inventory Review Hearing continued from 01/08/26, 02/27/26:
Letters Testamentary were issued 02/06/26. Final Inventory and Appraisal was due 06/08/26.
Recommend court compel Personal Representative to file the Final Inventory and Appraisal pursuant to Probate Code § 8804 or face possible sanctions including removal from office.
Appearance by Personal Representative and counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-23-001301 MATTER OF SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST OF BREANNE PURVIS
Account Review Hearing continued from 10/23/25, 02/24/26:
The First Account Current and Report of Trustee has been filed and set for hearing 08/11/26.
Hearing of 08/11/26 will be confirmed.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).  

PR-24-001374 L M DAVIDSON 2018 FAMILY TRUST DTD MAY 30, 2018
Hearing on Petition to 1) Compel a Report of the Trust and its Administration; 2) Compel an Account; 3) Compel Trustee to Perform Duties; 4) Instruct the Trustee; 5) Suspend and Remove the Trustee; and 6) Surcharge the Trustee (filed by Julie D. Davidson, Ted G. Davidson, and Mitchell L. Davison) continued from 05/14/25, 09/16/25:
Objection and Response filed -  09/16/25 (by Karen E. Serpa, Trustee)
Defects not cured. Prior notes remain:
•    It appears necessary that the court set a bond pursuant to PrC§15602(a)(3), however petition did not request a bond nor did it allege the amount of bond that would be appropriate.
•    Need proposed order.
Respondent’s Status Report indicates that parties have settled and a settlement agreement will be executed in 30 days and requests a 60-day continuance.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000323 ESTATE OF WALLACE ALLAN FARLEY
Account Review Hearing:
Recommend court drop Account Review Hearing.

Hearing on PrC§12200 Status Report of Administration:
•    Notice of Hearing not yet on file (see PrC§12201).
Recommend court order personal representative to perfect notice pursuant to PrC§12201 before the next hearing or surcharge may be imposed. If the Petition for Final Distribution is filed prior to the next hearing, the next hearing may be vacated.
Recommend continuance to 07/28/26 to allow time for notice, to coincide with hearing already set.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000994 ESTATE OF CAROLE ANN PELCHAT
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration continued from 10/28/25, 01/28/26, 02/20/26:
Prior defects cured. 
•    Petitioner appears to have the least priority to serve as a personal representative than any other person or entity described in Pr. Code §§ 8461, 8465. A person with priority does not appear to have filed a competing petition.  Petition requests minimum bond of $20,000.00. Bond matter submitted to Judge for determination.
On 10/28/25, this court ordered petitioner to conduct an heir search and mail notice to public administrator.  The results of the heir search have been reported in the Declaration filed 01/23/26 confirming the only heir of the decedent is the one and same daughter identified in the petition.  Notice to Public Administrator is on file.
At last hearing, the Court set a date certain for objections (04/10/263) or objections waived. Objection/competing petition is not on file.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-001165 MATTER OF DALIA MARY ROBINSON LIVING TRUST
Hearing on Petition for an Order to Confirm Validity of Trust; Confirm Trustee; and Confirm Asset to Trust continued from 02/25/26:
Recommend approval of petition.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000228 ESTATE OF GREGORY LYNN THOMAS
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration continued from 04/28/26:
Nothing filed since last hearing. Prior notes remain:
•    Waivers of bond [Form DE-142/DE-111(A-3e)] not on file for all intestate heirs (see Probate Code section 6401). Bond may be required. Minimum bond would be $20,000.00 pursuant to Local Rule 8.33. Full bond would be $404,000.00.
•    Petition item 8 omitted the name and date of death of decedent’s predeceased spouse.
•    Petition item 8 must include the relationships of all those listed to the decedent.
•    Petition item 8 did not include the proposed personal representative (Local Rule 8.26 D).
•    Form DE-121 Notice of Petition to Administer Estate not on file.
•    Affidavit of publication not on file. See Local Rule 8.12.
Need status.
Appearance by counsel required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000387 MATTER OF ALICE FAYE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST
Hearing on Petition for Conveyance or Transfer of Property Claimed to Belong to Trust continued from 06/10/26:
Prior Notes have been cured.
Recommend approval of petition.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000025 ESTATE OF ALICE FAYE BRIDGES, AKA ALICE FAYE ANDERSON
Hearing on Petition to Revoke Probate (PrC§8270):
Unless petitioner appears to request a continuance in order to file points and authorities, recommend denial of the petition. 
• This probate proceeding commenced intestate; the petitioner alleges a will was recently discovered, as well as a Living Trust. A PrC§8270 petition to revoke applies to a probate proceeding where a will was admitted to probate, and an interested person who opposes the will would file the petition to revoke probate of the will. Please see PrC§8272: the court would revoke probate only if it appears on satisfactory proof that the will should be denied probate. 
      o    See alternative remedies in PrC§8226 (admission of later-discovered will) and PrC§12251 (termination of probate when no property belonging to the estate is subject to administration).
Recommend court confirm Inventory Review Hearing of 08/18/26.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-24-000169 ESTATE OF EMMA AGNEW
Hearing on First Amended First and Final Report of Administrator and Petition for Statutory Fees and Costs and for Final Distribution:
•    The court granted a Fee Waiver at the onset of the case. There appear to be sufficient assets on hand for payment of court fees. Recommend court terminate the Fee Waiver.
    o    Administrator to make arrangements to pay previously waived court fees.
•    Line 26 on page 1: The date of death does not agree with the Order for Probate file-marked 12/05/24. If the Report and Petition is incorrect, please see CRC rules 7.3 and 7.53; if the Order for Probate was incorrect, the Administrator must file ex parte for an amended Order for Probate. See Probate Code section 8006(b).
•    The 90-day limitations period just recently elapsed for the creditor to file suit on the rejected claim (PrC§§9250, 9353). Please supplement the petition as to the disposition of that claim purs. to PrC§10900b)(3). See also CRC rules 7.3 and 7.53.
•    The proposed distribution is 100% to the estate of the decedent’s sole heir, who passed away in 2020. If probate proceedings have commenced for the heir’s estate, please identify the personal representative of that estate and file a copy of the probate letters (certified if issued from another court). If probate proceedings have not commenced, to whom is the administrator proposing distribution? Prayer paragraph 6 (distribution to the persons entitled) is more vague than the petition paragraph 31 (distribution to the estate of Kathy Stratham).
•    The pleading did not include either an accounting or a waiver of account. No waiver of account is on file from the personal representative of that estate of the deceased sole heir. An Accounting appears required. 
Recommend continuance to 08/06/26, to coincide with Account Review Hearing already set, to allow time to cure defects.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-25-000488 C. SCHLICHT 2022 TRUST, DTD SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
Hearing on Petition to Approve Settlement Agreement:
Notice appears complete.
Response and Limited Opposition filed – 05/18/26, by S. Wright:
Respondent opposes incorporation of a non-disparagement clause; disputes certain facts and disputes alleged in the petition, (although the prayer of the petition does not seek a court finding that all facts alleged are true).

Review of the Mediated Settlement Term Sheet, paragraph 7.c. states “The parties will execute a Long Form Settlement Agreement which contains a standard mutual non-disparagement provision.” Per S. Wright’s Response (paragraph 14), “because the parties never mutually agreed… the court should not impose a non-disparagement provision….” Per the petitioner’s Supplement file-marked 06/18/26 argues for the provision’s inclusion and goes in depth as to why, but also offers (line 22, page 5), “Alternatively, the court should remain silent on this issue and the parties can seek recourse on this issue via separate motion to the court.”
Submit to court for determination.

Additionally, recommend court continue hearing on Petition for Modification of Trust from 06/16/26 to today’s hearing date, nunc pro tunc to 06/16/26, and thereafter continue the hearing on the Petition for Modification of Trust to 09/22/26.

Appearance by petitioner’s counsel and respondent (self-represented) required (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/…

PR-26-000416 ESTATE OF SHERRI LEA LOFING
Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration:
Bond waivers on file for all intestate heirs.
Recommend approval of petition.  
Recommend Inventory Review Hearing 01/07/27 pursuant to Local Rule 8.41 B.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000418 ESTATE OF PEDRO BLANCO CORTINA
Hearing on Amended Petition for Letters of Administration (file marked 04/27/26):
Waiver of bond is on file.
The following items must be addressed in the Amended Petition (DE-111):
•    Item 3b was checked (decedent was a citizen of another country), but the country was not specified.
•    Item 3c omitted the county (decedent’s residence).
•    Item 3g(3) was checked (appointment of special administrator) and attachment 3g(3) was included; however, this does not appear to be a petition for special administrator as other areas of this form pertaining to appointment of special administrator were left blank. (ie caption box, item 2(b)(4)….etc).  A separate petition is required for this purpose. It is unclear if petitioner’s intention was to amend the original petition filed 04/17/26 or to amend the petition for letters of special administration (which was previously adjudicated and denied). 
•    Item 5a(3) or (4) were left blank (existence of registered domestic partner).
•    Item 5a(5) and (a) or (b) were left blank (existence of child).
•    Item 5a(7) or (8) were left blank (existence of issue of a predeceased child).
•    Item 5b was left blank (existence of stepchild or foster child who would have been adopted but for a legal barrier).
•    Item 8 did not properly label the personal representative pursuant to Local Rule 8.26D.  Example, Petitioner is both the decedent’s daughter and the proposed personal representative.
•    The petition characterizes the decedent’s property as personal. It appears that at least one listed asset (IRA account) may not be subject to probate.  Is there a pay on death beneficiary for this account?  Has petitioner reached out to the account institution to inquire? Another asset listed as “SSA” does not appear to be an asset of the estate.
    o    In light of this and the low estimated value of the estate ($20,630.00), it is not clear whether formal probate is necessary in this case. Recommend the petitioners review the “Probate FAQ’s (frequently-asked     questions)” on the court’s website here: https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/divisions/probate/probate-faqs 
    o    While Examiner does not consider the above note to be a fatal defect, it is the court’s discretion to consider granting a petition for probate under the threshold.
See California Rules of Court rules 7.3 and 7.53 regarding the types of pleadings that may be used to address these defects.
Petitioner may consider supplementing petition to provide the missing information.
Judicial Council forms are available for download here: https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/forms-filing/common-forms-packets 
Declarations may be written on Judicial Council Form MC-030 Declaration or on pleading paper. 
Proof of Service is Form POS-030.

The following items must be addressed in the Court’s file:
•    Form DE-121 Notice of Petition to Administer Estate not on file.
•    Affidavit of publication not on file. See Local Rule 8.12.
    o    Attached to the Amended Petition (Attachment One) is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Request to Waive Publication. Petitioner’s request to dispense with notice is submitted to Judge for     determination.
•    Form DE-150, Letters, submitted 04/27/26 is incomplete:  Item 3 is blank.
Hearing Required.
Appearance by petitioner (self-represented) is required (Anyone appearing may do so either in person or remotely, by telephone, using VCourt).

PR-26-000422 ESTATE OF DAVID SILVA, JR.
Hearing on Petition to Determine Succession to Primary Residence:
If no one appears to object, recommend court find notice complete and approve the petition.
Appearance not required (by VCourt if preferred).

PR-26-000424 ESTATE OF SHIU KUMAR
Hearing on Petition for Probate of Lost Will and for Letters Testamentary:

The following items must be addressed in the Petition (DE-111):
•    Item 3d(7) incomplete (Total value of estate).
•    Item 3e(1) was checked “special administrator is named executor” but petition did not request Letters of Special Administration.
•    Item 3f(3) was not checked (original Will has been lost); however, the caption of the petition reflects the box checked that this petition is for probate of a lost Will.
•    Item 3g(d) is checked “other executors will not act because of death); however, it does not appear that the other executor and date of his/her death was included on Item 8.
•    Item 5a(3) or (4) were left blank (existence of registered domestic partner).
•    Item 5a(5) and (a) or (b) were left blank (existence of child).
•    Item 5a(7) or (8) were left blank (existence of issue of a predeceased child).
•    Item 6h was checked (no next of kin) but does not agree with item 8 which reflects three heirs.
•    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.
•    Item 8 must include all those named in the Will, and if they are deceased so state with date of death.
•    Item 8 did not include the complete addresses for all those listed.
•    Item 8 recites a person alleged to be the mother of the decedent.
•    Attachment 3f(3) omitted from Petition (Declaration regarding lost will purs. PrC§6124). See also PrC§8223.

The following items must be addressed in the Court’s file:
•    Form DE-147 Duties and Liabilities not on file.
•    Form DE-121 Notice of Petition to Administer Estate not on file.
•    Affidavit of publication not on file. See Local Rule 8.12.
•    Form DE-140, Proposed Order, not submitted.
•    Form DE-150, Letters, not submitted.

Appearance by petitioner (self-represented) is required (Anyone appearing may do so either in person or remotely, by telephone, using VCourt).
 

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, not yet submitted.
Consider downloading the form from https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/jcc-form/DE-295. 
•    It appears that the Personal Representative’s mailing address may have changed.
    o    The court file has not been updated with a new mailing or physical address.
    This form is available for download online here:
•    https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/jcc-form/MC-040 
Recommend court direct Personal Representative to file Judicial Council Form MC-040, Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact, with the Court prior to next hearing.
Appearance by personal representative (self-represented) 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:
•    The following schedules were omitted.  See Local Rule 8.83 and CRC 7.550(b):
    o    Schedule of Proposed Distribution.
    o    Schedule of Gains/losses.
•    List and description of the costs of administration was omitted (see Local Rules 8.69, 8.83K).
•    Need new order.  
    o    Finding regarding notice was omitted [see PrC§1260].
    o    Proposed order phrases the court’s finding in paragraph 1 and 2 as “it is ordered and adjudged” rather than “the Court finds…”.
•    Please note, Waiver of Accounting does not bear notary’s acknowledgement (Local Rule 8.69); Waivers must be filed separately (PrC§10954). Examiner does not consider this a fatal defect in this case because petitioner is sole heir and has waived an accounting withing his verified petition.  For future filings, please submit a notarized waiver of accounting.
Recommend continuance to 07/24/26 to allow time to cure defects.
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:
REVIEW IN PROGRESS. PLEASE CHECK BACK.

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:
REVIEW IN PROGRESS. PLEASE CHECK BACK.

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).