Skip to main content.

Conservatorships

If the tentative ruling does not require appearances, and is accepted, no appearance is necessary. 

Any party who wishes to be heard in response or opposition to the Court’s tentative ruling MUST NOTIFY the Court’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6893 and MUST NOTIFY all other parties of the intent to appear, and whether they will appear in person or by Zoom.  Both notifications must be completed no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court (business) day immediately before the day of the hearing.

Unless notification of an appearance has been given as provided above, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court the day of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar, absent an objection from an interested party per Probate Code section 1043.    

To Access the Probate Examiner Notes:

  • Access the Portal
  • Accept the Terms
  • Choose Smart Search, insert your case number, and follow all instructions.

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” Online

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” By Phone:

  • Call: +1 669-254-5252 US (San Jose) and enter the same meeting ID and password as listed above.

Guide for Participating in Court Proceedings via Zoom for Dept 12:

  • After joining the meeting and checking in with the clerk, please mute your audio when not speaking. This helps keep background noise to a minimum.
  • Be mindful of background noise when your microphone is not muted. Avoid activities that could create additional noise, such as shuffling papers.
  • Position your camera properly if you choose to use a web camera. Be sure it is in a stable position and focused at eye level, if possible. Make sure everything visible in the frame is appropriate for an appearance in court.
  • If a confidential session becomes necessary it is incumbent on you to ensure you are able to participate from a private location so that unauthorized people cannot overhear or see the proceedings.
  • Chat is enabled for the sharing of documents among participants and the court and to allow attorneys to communicate individually with each other or their clients only. No chat messages should be sent privately to the court as it would amount to an unauthorized ex parte communication. Neither should chat messages be sent to all participants unless directed by the court.
  • The recording function has been disabled. Remember, the prohibition against recording court proceedings, even remote ones, remains.
  • Be patient. Check in will take more time and the experience from those who have tried this before is that proceedings are a little slower generally.

Tentative Rulings

Honorable Jennifer V. Dollard
April 25, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Conservatorship of Robert Alviso
    23PR00408
    Waiver of Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The conservatorship shall continue without modification.

The Request and Order for Waiver of Accounting for the period of February 26, 2024, through February 25, 2025, is APPROVED.

Petitioners shall pay to the Office of the Court Investigator the amount of $600.00 within 30 days of this order.

Matter is SET on the April 1, 2027, case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of accounting. If an accounting or Request and Order for Waiver of Accounting, for the period of February 26, 2025, through February 25, 2027, is filed at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, the matter will be dropped.

 

  1. Conservatorship of David Dews, Jr.
    24PR01136
    Appointment of Conservator

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Court excuses the appearance of the proposed conservatee as the Court has been informed by his doctor that he is unable to attend the hearing.

The Court intends to APPROVE the petition to establish a conservatorship of the person and estate.  However, the Court intends to appoint Shelly Smith, a professional fiduciary, as conservator. There are a number of reasons why the Court finds this to be necessary and appropriate, as set forth below.

At issue in this case are public benefits through the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and Medicare.  A failure to successfully navigate the rights of David Dews, Jr., to maximize his benefits in these systems could unnecessarily cost his estate thousands of dollars otherwise necessary for his care and support.  The Court understands that the VA benefits may be terminating forthwith.  The Court’s experience is that success contacting, negotiating with and obtaining public benefits from agencies is much more difficult for a novice lay person when compared with a sophisticated professional fiduciary. And while a lay person appointed conservator could refer these duties to their attorney, this would be at a much greater cost to the estate than when the duties are performed by a professional fiduciary. 

The objector, Andre Dews, has indicated that his father David Dews Jr. may have properties in Texas that involve oil and mineral rights, as well as more than one pension.  This further establishes that the estate is not a simple one and may involve difficulty in inventorying, appraising and safeguarding the assets.

Likewise, this case now involves potentially complex litigation surrounding a trust, and a potential dispute over possession of real property.  When the possibility of an eviction is present the Court’s experience, again, is that a lay person engaging in the litigation, even with competent counsel, has a much more difficult path to success.  A professional fiduciary also has the benefit of being emotionally removed from the familial relationships, making beneficial compromise agreements much more likely.  For example, it is possible to negotiate an agreed upon fair market monthly rent value to be assessed while litigation is pending.  Eventually, the accrued amount is addressed after the final outcome of the litigation.  This saves the estate the cost of an eviction and preserves the status quo for the person living in the home, all while reserving the right of the conservatorship estate to recover fully should the litigation (or settlement) determine that is appropriate.  The ability of siblings to successfully reach these types of agreements, for whatever reason, often involves protracted (and expensive) discussions by their surrogate attorneys, if they are successful at all.

And finally, given the nature of the trust litigation in related case 25PR00139, a potential, if not actual, conflict of interest exists between the petitioner, David Dews Jr.’s daughter, in her role as an heir and that of a conservator.  For example, she would be in the position of evaluating potential settlements that would preserve assets for the conservatorship estate by avoiding protracted, expensive litigation, but which might be at odds with her own interests as an heir or beneficiary of the probate estate.  This issue is avoided entirely by appointment of a neutral professional fiduciary. 

The Court is cognizant that Mr. David Dews, Jr., expressed at the last hearing, as did his counsel, that he wishes his daughter to be appointed conservator.  Putting aside whether he has capacity to make a knowing, voluntary and informed decision, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that it is in his best interests to appoint a professional fiduciary.

Despite the repeated urging of the Court for a separate petition to be submitted in support of a nominated professional fiduciary, there is still not one on file.  The Court is not inclined to further continue this case for that purpose, especially in light of the imminent end of the VA benefits and past due amount owed to the care home.  The Court finds instead that it has sufficient information based on everything in the file, and the declaration filed by Shelly Smith on March 19, 2025, to appoint her in the absence of a separate petition.  The Court will require that she file her statement of fees and license information prior to letters issuing to comply with Probate Code section 1821(c).

The parties should be prepared to address bond.

Assuming the petition is approved as stated above, conservator shall pay to the Office of the Court Investigator the amount of $600.00 within 120 days of this order.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Vanessa Bardella
    SPR095412
    Attorney’s Fees

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The Court APPROVES reimbursement of 80% of the fees incurred in defense of the lawsuits.  However, given the allegations of the wrongful death suit, and the fact that the co-defendants benefited from the settlement, the Court finds there should be an apportionment of fees among the co-defendants named in the wrongful death suit.  Therefore, the Court authorizes payment of 80% of the fees incurred from the conservatorship estate.  As the co-defendants are not parties to this action, the Court does not order payment by them of the remaining 20%.  Petitioner is directed to submit an order after hearing that conforms to this ruling and includes the specific amount of fees constituting 80% of the total owed. 

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?