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 Wayne O. Evenson

Case Number

22PR00263

Case Type

Conservatorship

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 10/15/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Appointment of Successor Conservator

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearance required. 

The current petition for Successor Conservator filed by Shelly McConnell on August 20, 2024, received a written objection, filed by Kimberly Evenson, who filed a competing petition for appointment as successor conservator on September 9, 2024.  The objections place the appointment of a successor conservator at issue, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve.  (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)

This hearing was set as an Evidentiary Hearing to resolve the issue of successor conservator.  The following is noted for the court at the hearing:

McConnell Petition

Proof of Service to Public Guardian.  If the petition states that the petitioner and the proposed conservator have no prior relationship with the proposed conservatee (usually private professionals) and has not been nominated by a family member, friend, or other person with a relationship to the proposed conservatee, notice of hearing shall be served on the public guardian of the county in which the petition is filed. [Prob. C. § 2250(e)(2)]

Standing.  Petitioner is a private Professional Fiduciary with no relation to the conservatee.  Standing to petition for successor conservator is governed by Probate Code section 2681, which allows “any other interested person” (Id. at subd. (e)) to petition for appointment.  According to the definition of interested person in the code “interested person” includes any of the following:

(1) An heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding.

(2) Any person having priority for appointment as personal representative.

(3) A fiduciary representing an interested person.

(Prob. Code, §48(a).)

It appears from the allegations in the McConnell Petition that she is a fiduciary representing the conservatee’s spouse, who is an interested person. As long as evidence presented at the hearing shows affirmatively that Ms. Evenson requested Ms. McConnell to represent her concerns and ensure that the conservatee received the proper care, the Court should not rule that she has no standing.  At minimum, Ms. McConnell would meet the definition of “interested person” at subdivision (b) of section 48: “(b) The meaning of “interested person” as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and shall be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding.” 

The Court need not follow the White Rabbit down the dead-end hole of argument relating to the admissibility of the oral statements by Ms. Hoffman King and Ms. Morris in regards to whether Ms. McConnell was nominated. First, the nomination, as shown above, has little effect on Ms. McConnell’s standing. Second, the best evidence rule cited by Ms. Evenson was repealed in 1998[1] and replaced by the secondary evidence rule, of which oral testimony is allowed when the writing is lost (Evid. Code, §1523(b)), as it was alleged to be lost in this case.  Surely, over 25 years is sufficient time to elapse for any practicing attorney to understand when something is no longer a thing. Therefore, citation to the Best Evidence rule is misleading at worst, and disingenuous at best…especially when there was no discussion of Evidence Code section 1523 exceptions.

Priority.  While the nomination is of no moment to Ms. McConnell’s standing, it is of crucial importance to priority of appointment due to the operation of Probate Code section 1812(b)(3), which places in priority above all others the nomination of a proposed conservator by the spouse. The Court should, therefore, focus on the nomination at the hearing, especially since it appears the nomination of Ms. McConnell governs appointment according to the current record before the court.  Barring additional evidence at the hearing that shows the written nomination was purposely destroyed or made unavailable, the oral testimony of the deceased Ms. Evans’s nomination of Ms. McConnell should carry the day.

However, the true condition of the estate of the conservatee should also carry great weight in the Court’s decision as to what is the “least restrictive means” of protecting the interests and health of the conservatee.  If the estate was truly drained of the financial ability to pay for the conservatee’s care, the Court should be very concerned about appointing a Professional Fiduciary, as that appointment will generate large fees that will further drain the estate and hinder the conservatee’s future care.

Evenson Petition

No issues.

The proposed temporary conservatee is not expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1825(a)(2)[medical inability].)

[1] “Sections 1552 and 1553 were added to the Evidence Code as part of the 1998 legislation that repealed the best evidence rule (former § 1500) and adopted the secondary evidence rule (§§ 1520–1523; Stats.1998, ch. 100, §§ 4, 5, pp. 634–635.)” (People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 269.)

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?