Skip to main content.

Estates & Other Probate

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 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

May 8, 2026 at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Estate of Steven George Guild
    24PR01120
    Preliminary Distribution

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. It appears that the distribution may be made without loss to creditors or injury to the estate or any interested person.  The matter is SET on the January 28, 2027 probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution.  No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of Eleanor Wight Henry
    25PR00363
    Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. Any future court dates are DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Estate of Joseph Fulton Beattie
    25PR00533
    Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Any future hearings are DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Estate of Carol Ann Cenci
    25PR00719
    Waiver of Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. Any future court dates are DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Estate of Mark Raymond Greenberg
    25PR00982
    Waiver of Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Any future hearings are DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Estate of Donna Lee Guth
    25PR01351
    Letters of Administration

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. No bond is required as all heirs waive bond. Petitioner is to file an Inventory and Appraisal within four months of issuance of letters (Prob. Code section 8800(b)) and either a petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or a report of status of administration within the timeframe set out in Probate Code section 12200.

The matter is SET on the July 8, 2027, probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution. No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of Marilyn Sylvestri
    26PR00149
    Probate of Will

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. This matter is CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12.  Please refer to the Probate Examiner Notes.  New publication must also provide notice of the June 12, 2026 hearing date, not a date that has already passed.

 

  1. Estate of Alberto Migliardi
    26PR00312
    Spousal Property Petition

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. 

 

  1. Estate of John Thomas Moura
    26PR00323
    Letters of Administration

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. No bond is required as all heirs waive bond. Petitioner is to file an Inventory and Appraisal within four months of issuance of letters (Prob. Code section 8800(b)) and either a petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or a report of status of administration within the timeframe set out in Probate Code section 12200.

The matter is SET on the July 8, 2027, probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution. No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of Robert Shawn McCoy
    26PR00332
    Spousal Property Petition

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

 

  1. Estate of Linda Ann Fountaine
    26PR00353
    Probate of Will and Admin WWA

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. No bond is required as all beneficiaries have waived bond. Petitioner is to file an Inventory and Appraisal within four months of issuance of letters (Prob. Code section 8800(b)) and either a petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or a report of status of administration within the timeframe set out in Probate Code section 12200.

The matter is SET on the July 8, 2027, probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution. No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of David A. Holtzinger
    26PR00359
    Probate of Will

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. No bond is required as beneficiaries have waived bond. Petitioner is to file an Inventory and Appraisal within four months of issuance of letters (Prob. Code section 8800(b)) and either a petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or a report of status of administration within the timeframe set out in Probate Code section 12200.

The matter is SET on the July 8, 2027, probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution. No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of Susan Cilia
    26PR00360
    Probate of Will

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. No bond is required as the will waives bond. Petitioner is to file an Inventory and Appraisal within four months of issuance of letters (Prob. Code section 8800(b)) and either a petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or a report of status of administration within the timeframe set out in Probate Code section 12200.

The matter is SET on the July 8, 2027, probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution. No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of Roxane Marie Wilson
    26PR00361
    Letters of Administration

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  This matter is CONTINUED to June 5, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12.  Please refer to the Probate Examiner Notes.

 

  1. Estate of James David Lowry
    26PR00375
    Letters of Administration

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. No bond is required as the sole heir waives bond. Petitioner is to file an Inventory and Appraisal within four months of issuance of letters (Prob. Code section 8800(b)) and either a petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or a report of status of administration within the timeframe set out in Probate Code section 12200.

The matter is SET on the July 8, 2027, probate case management conference calendar at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of estate or final account and distribution. No appearances at the hearing will be required if the court determines that administration of the estate is timely proceeding, or good cause is shown why more time is required.

 

  1. Estate of Miklos G. Fabian
    SPR-71179
    Waiver of Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: APPROVED. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. Any future court dates are DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Estate of Everett C. Arnold
    SPR-091296
    Waiver of Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  This matter is CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12.  Please refer to the Probate Examiner Notes.

 

  1. Estate of Trola Mae Arnold
    SPR-091297
    Waiver of Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  This matter is CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12.  Please refer to the Probate Examiner Notes.

 

19, 20. Estate of Lennice Katherine Ambrose-Gordon: Consolidated with SPR-097246
                SPR-97310
                Petition for Homestead set-aside
                Request for Fees

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The petition for homestead set-aside is CONTINUED to June 12, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to be heard concurrently with the newly filed petition for partition, also filed by Mr. Gordon.  It is unclear to the Court whether he seeks both forms of relief, or if the request for a homestead is rendered moot by the petition for partition, or if it is sought in the alternative depending on the outcome of the petition for partition.  Whichever may be the case, the Court finds it appropriate to delay ruling on the petition for homestead until the issue of partition is decided.

The Court also notes Carrington Anthony (Tony) Ambrose is entitled to notice of the petition for homestead pursuant to California Probate Code §6525(b). No proof of service has been filed. The petitioner is directed to timely serve code complaint notice of the continued hearing to Carrington Anthony (Tony) Ambrose and file proof of service in advance of the continued hearing.  In the absence of such proof of service, or a waiver of notice, the petition for homestead will be denied without prejudice at the next hearing.

The motion for fees is CONTINUED to June 25, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12.  At the end of this case, should the Court be presented with an application for extraordinary compensation, the Court, and opposing counsel, must be able to determine for what matters extraordinary compensation has or has not already been awarded.  As the motion is presented in its current form, if the Court were to award a blanket $125,000 amount, that is a very uncertain proposition.  Given the representation of the total amount of attorney fees incurred to date, versus the amount being requested to be paid now, the Court suspects there may have been a belief that alone was substantial justification for the amount requested.  However, it does not avoid the problem that will be present in connection with any future request for extraordinary compensation.

Also, as presented currently, the Court is unable to evaluate the reasonableness of the compensation requested, specifically as to the rates charged by individual billers based on their qualifications.  The standard for calculating attorney fee awards under California law:

[O]rdinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate…The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. [Citation.] Such an approach anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.

(PLCM Group, Inc. u. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (PLCM Group); see also Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131-1132.) In calculating the lodestar, "The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work." (Ibid.) "[T]he trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee." (PLCM Group, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) "The determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his or her court. [Citation.]” (Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1240.)

(PLCM Group, Inc. u. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (PLCM Group); see also Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131-1132.) The court may consider various other factors when determining a reasonable hourly rate, including the attorney’s skill and experience, the nature of the work performed, the relevant area of expertise and the attorney's customary billing rates. See, e.g. Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 632-633; Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 496.  The lodestar calculation:

… begins with a determination of the “reasonable hourly rate,” i.e., the rate “prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 198, 997 P.2d 511.) The general rule is “[t]he relevant ‘community’ is that where the court is located.” (Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 71, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 714.)

However, “in the unusual circumstance that local counsel is unavailable,” or that “hiring local counsel was impracticable,” the trial court is not limited to the use of local rates and may instead use the hourly rate of out-of-town counsel from a higher fee market in calculating the lodestar amount. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 399, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 644.)

Marshall v. Webster, (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 285–286.

None of the above information is provided.  Other than Mr. Singler, the remainder of those listed on the billing sheets are a mystery, as is any supporting qualifications for their rates.  As to the rates of Mr. Singler, the Court notes the top rates for highly qualified attorneys in probate in this legal community, the applicable standard, are around $450 - $475 per hour, though on rare occasion, up to $525 an hour may be approved.  Whether the higher rates charged for other services by Mr. Singler, such as appellate work or civil litigation, is reasonable for this legal community is presently unaddressed by the motion.  The Court also requires further information about what Ms. Chandler actually paid for, which comprises the $18,450 she requests.  To the extent some of the billers are paralegals, none of the information required by California Rule of Court, Rule 7.703 is provided.

The Court has considered whether to simply deny the motion without prejudice in light of these deficiencies, and that a Court is not required to go line by line through billing records in order to make the determination requested by the motion.  (“When confronted with hundreds of pages of legal bills, trial courts are not required to identify each charge they find to be reasonable or unreasonable, necessary or unnecessary.”  Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 101, as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 4, 2009)).  However, the Court tentatively finds it is likely appropriate to award a preliminary distribution of some extraordinary compensation in this case, and so finds it to be in the interests of judicial economy and that of the parties, to instead continue the matter.

Further briefing by the parties addressing the above matters shall be consistent with the deadlines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, calculated from the next hearing date.

 

  1. Estate of Donald A. Wiedmann
    SPR-097345
    Other Hearing: Petition for Fiduciary Accounting, Surcharge, and Imposition of Constructive Trust

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  In the absence of an objection, the petition is APPROVED as stated below. 

The request for an account is granted.  The proposed order submitted contains no time frame for production of the accounting.  The Court orders that an accounting addressing the matters listed in the proposed order must be served (not filed) no later than 75 days after service of notice of entry of an order after hearing.  The Court notes that in its experience the compliance with an order for an accounting from a removed fiduciary may not be wholly satisfactory to the petitioner.  If this is the case, the petitioner may also consider conducting their own investigation and construction of a historical financial picture necessary to assess damages to the estate and then request a surcharge for the amount expended in that effort.

As to the damages/surcharge requested in the petition, evidence will need to be presented to this Court before a decision can be rendered. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to October 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12.  The purpose of the continuance is to allow the petitioner time to receive and review any accounting produced, conduct his own investigation if necessary and prepare to present written evidence to the Court and respondent regarding the amount of any damages/surcharge claimed. Unless the petitioner needs and requests more time, the petitioner should file and serve written evidence supporting the damages sought at least 10 days before the hearing. In the absence of any objection, the Court may decide the question based solely on the written evidence submitted.  However, if there is an objection, or if the Court determines it requires live testimony, it may set an evidentiary hearing. 

The Court finds this structure is necessary as the respondent may yet contest the amounts sought despite her failure to file an objection to the underlying petition. As an analogy, the Court points to the structure in civil cases for damages following a default. There, the amount of damages that may be awarded are limited by the allegations of the complaint, even where a statement of damages is served prior to entry of default. As discussed in the case of Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267:

We begin with the basic guidelines for analyzing the legal effect of a default. “Substantively, ‘[t]he judgment by default is said to “confess” the material facts alleged by the plaintiff, i.e., the defendant's failure to answer has the same effect as an express admission of the matters well pleaded in the complaint.” (Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 823, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, second italics added.) The “well-pleaded allegations” of a complaint refer to “ ‘ “all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” ’ ” (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 205, 129 P.3d 394, quoting Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241.) Because the default confesses those properly pleaded facts, a plaintiff has no responsibility to provide the court with sufficient evidence to prove them—they are treated as true for purposes of obtaining a default judgment. (Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1746, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 391.) But that is all the default does. There is no penalty for defaulting. “A defendant has the right to elect not to answer the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 829 [231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295].) Although this may have been a tactical move by defendant, it is a permissible tactic.” (Stein v. York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 320, 325, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) And if the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default judgment in the plaintiff's favor cannot stand. On appeal from the default judgment, “[a]n objection that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action may be considered.” see (Martin v. Lawrence (1909) 156 Cal. 191, 103 P. 913; Bristol Convalescent Hosp. v. Stone (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 848, 859, 66 Cal.Rptr. 404.)

Id. at 281–282 (italics in original). Damages following a default are generally limited to those demanded in the complaint:

[Plaintiff’s] complaint also fails to set forth any clear demand for damages, let alone one which would support the enormous judgment he obtained from the trial court. As this court has iterated and then reiterated, Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, we have also made it clear that a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death. “Statements of damages are used only in personal injury and wrongful death....[Citation.] In all other cases, when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint. [Citations.]” (Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 206, fn. 4, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 823….)

Id. at 286.

While this is not a civil action, the concern, based in due process, exists equally.  That is the amount of damages to be claimed in the future are not apparent from the allegations of the petition. Rather, the basis for the amount of damages will necessarily be developed following the production of the accounting and/or investigation by petitioner. The petition therefore fails to provide notice to the respondent that a judgment against her for a specific amount would result from her failure to object to the petition. Of course, at any future hearing, the respondent may not contest any of the allegations of the petition, but she is entitled to be given an opportunity to present evidence and argument responsive to any claim for a specified amount of damages then raised.

The request for costs of suit associated with the petition and any prove-up hearing may be claimed pursuant to a memorandum of costs filed with the court and subject to a motion to tax at the conclusion of the matter.

Any request for attorney’s fees must be by noticed motion and include the authority for an award, as well as support for the amount requested

Petitioner is directed to submit a revised proposed order after hearing that conforms to this ruling.  The Court will issue a written order.

 

***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?