Estate of Nancy L Larson
Estate of Nancy L Larson
Case Number
21PR00174
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 08:30
Nature of Proceedings
1. Petition for Final Distribution 2. Motion to Dismiss Probate Estate
Tentative Ruling
Probate Notes:
Appearances required.
The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:
Final Distribution
There is no Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-120) of the Petition for Final Distribution on anyone. Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees, as well as on the Personal Representative (if not the petitioner) and special notice requestors. (Prob. Code, §§ 11601 & 1220.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person’s representative. (§1220.) No such document was filed.
There is no Notice to Franchise Tax Board. Notice MUST have been given to the Franchise Tax Board not later than 90 days after the date letters are first issued. (Prob. Code, § 9202, subd. (c)(1).)
There is no Proposed Distribution. Petitioner left paragraphs 37-38 blank.
The estate has no value. The Final Inventory and Appraisal shows no property in the estate. Thus, final distribution would be futile, because there is nothing to distribute.
“Motion to Dismiss Probate Estate Due to Insolvency”
There is no such motion known in the Code of Civil Procedure or Probate Code. In addition to that misleading and inappropriate title, Petitioner cites a non-existent Probate Code section, 1164(a).[1] Not only does that section not exist in the Probate Code, but there is no section in that Code between sections 1064 and 1200. Stated another way, Petitioner’s citation is so obviously generated by an AI hallucination, that any layperson could have put minimal effort into cite checking the citation to verify it did not exist.
It is recommended the Court, therefore, deny both petitions as improperly pleaded and supported:
In the face of these omissions, the trial court had no obligation to undertake its own search of the record “backwards and forwards to try to figure out how the law applies to the facts” of the case. See (Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409 [reviewing court is not obligated to undertake independent examination of record when appellant “ ‘has shirked his responsibility in this respect” ’]; see Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 413] [where appellant's motion was supported by deficient memorandum, trial court was justified in denying the motion on procedural grounds].) Rule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party's theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide. On the record in this case, the trial court was justified in declining to look beyond that failure.
(Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [emphasis added].)
[1] Petitioner also randomly cited to Probate Code section 13151, but never referred to it again in the pleading, and that section has to do with small estate procedures not applicable in this case. Thus, appears to be either a product of AI or incomprehension.