Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

We have been made aware of fraudulent text messages being sent to individuals claiming to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the court system. These messages often state that the recipient owes penalties or fees related to traffic violations or DMV infractions and may include a link or phone number to resolve the matter. 

Take these steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to a text message scam:

  • Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts — If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply.
  • Verify the source — If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels.
  • Call the DMV if you have concerns — The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133.

Please see DMV warning about fraudulent texts: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-warns-of-fraudulent-te…

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Conservatorship of Delva Roberts Souza

Case Number

19PR00252

Case Type

Conservatorship

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 05/20/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Second Accounting and Report

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.  The following defects in the accounting must be resolved via supplement:

Discrepancy no. 1 – Charges do not equal credits (Prob. Code, §1061(c).)  The total credits are off by $3.26 from the total charges.

Update for May 20th Hearing.  Resolved by supplement. Conservator will pay the difference.

                                 

Discrepancy no. 2 – Numerous receipts and payments (both large and small) were listed without listing payor, payee, or purpose.  For example, on 3/3 & 3/22/2024, two payments of $15,005 were made without payee or purpose. Please resubmit schedules A & C with supplement, and include payor and purpose of payment for receipts, and payee and purpose of payment for disbursements.

The following entries in schedule A & C are not readily ascertainable and must be clarified via supplement:

  • Several receipts are unlabeled, including large ($40,000-$50,000) payments. Please provide payor, and description of payments, and reason for payments if necessary.
  • Several disbursements made to “Optumrx”. Please give reason/purpose for disbursement.
  • Several disbursements were listed as “Transfer to Jeff Jeffrey” that total well over $100,000 dollars.  Please explain why the conservator is being paid tens of thousands of dollars out of the conservatorship estate without court approval.
  • $2,060 to “Mike and Donna Mapel” for “ranch taxes” – 1/7/2021.  Please explain via supplement.
  • $1,744.84 to “SLOCTC” needs explanation. What was this for? Who is SLOCTC?
  • Two payments on December 1, 2021 and 2022 were made for “Normal Distribution-RMD” without explanation. Please identify payee and purpose.

Update for May 20th Hearing.  Unresolved by supplement. It is painfully apparent from the way receipts and transactions are listed in both Schedules A and C that the conservator is not only imprudently managing the estate, but is committing multiple breaches of fiduciary duty on almost a daily basis. The transactions show multiple, high-dollar disbursements to the conservator that are indicative of comingling, self-dealing, conflict of interest, and failure to preserve estate property and failure to make estate property productive.  Surcharge of all amounts transferred to the conservator from the estate is recommended.

Discrepancy no. 3 – The conservator must obtain the court’s permission before using estate assets for gifts or loans. (CRC 7.1059(b)(3).) On 12/29/2020 there was a “Christmas gift to Jason Jeffery” without court approval.  It is recommended this be a surcharge against the conservator.

Update for May 20th Hearing.  No change in recommendation. Surcharge recommended.

Discrepancy no. 4 – Estate on hand at end of account not supported by schedule showing market value. (Prob. Code, §1063(a).)

Update for May 20th Hearing.  Resolved by supplement.

Discrepancy no. 5 - Original residential care facility or long term care facility bills (Prob. Code, § 2620(b)(5)) must be submitted, because conservatee no longer resides in personal residence, but resides in what appears to be a residential care facility.

Update for May 20th Hearing.  Conservatee appears to have been in a residential care facility every month during the accounting period, yet only two month’s worth of statements were submitted.  This is not indicative of prudent management of estate accounts (in violation of CRC, Rule 7.1059(b)), and violates at least two fiduciary duties (CRC, Rule 7.1059(b)(1) and (8)).

Discrepancy no. 6 - Sufficiency of the bond must be addressed. (See Local Rule 1742 (a) & (b).)

Current bond is $332,000, and Petitioner proposes to lower bond to $185,512.76.  This is insufficient.

The amount of the bond given by an admitted surety insurer must be the sum of the following (Prob C §2320(c); Cal Rules of Ct 7.204(c)):

  • The value of the personal property of the estate;
  • The probable annual gross income of all estate property;
  • The sum of the probable annual gross payments from specified county, state, and federal public welfare programs;
  • A reasonable amount for the cost of recovery to collect on the bond, including attorney fees and costs (see §9.4A for rules for determining this amount); and
  • The value of any real property for which the conservator holds an independent power of sale (Prob C §2591(c)).

The court may increase or decrease that amount on a showing of good cause. Prob C §2320(c).

The accounting shows that the property on hand is $91,641.36 in cash and $1,948,787.18 in non-cash.  The conservator holds an independent power to sell all non-cash property, except the conservatee’s primary residence.

Thus, bond must be recalculated and raised accordingly.

Update for May 20th Hearing.  Unresolved. Conservator admits independent power to sell. It does not matter that the property interests are partial, as those sales can be done without a court order, other than the conservatee’s personal residence. It is recommended bond be increased, especially in light of the malfeasance identified above.

RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL

This is the second account that has been in total disarray, and revealed multiple, high dollar transactions of funds between the conservator’s personal accounts and the estate accounts. Conservator objectively appears to be handling the conservatorship estate as his personal property, make little to no effort not to comingle funds, and is regularly paying persons to care for the conservatee when the conservatee appears to have been in a residential care facility for the entire accounting period. This malfeasance has cost the conservatee’s estate tens of thousands of dollars in this accounting period alone. 

It is, therefore, recommended the Court set an OSC re: Removal, order notice to the surety (Prob. Code, §1213(b), and order notice to the Public Guardian.

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?