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.

Estate of Martin Andres Van Dyke

Case Number

22PR00280

Case Type

Decedent's Estate

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/20/2023 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.  The following must be submitted:

Improper Proposed Distribution.  Proposed distribution to heirs of Charles Van Dyke improperly attempts to “skip” probate.  A party cannot avoid probating a post-deceased person’s estate just because the heirs would be the same.  (Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 744. [“Accordingly, it would be premature for the court to distribute Ralph's personal estate at this time. (See Estate of Hart (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 271, 280-281, 311 P.2d 605 [where title vests subject to the administration of the estate, the right to possession is deferred until the distribution of the estate and is contingent upon the will not being set aside by a contest after probate].)

This is because title vests at date of death in the person to whom it is devised or inherited.  (In re Estate of Meyer (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 799, 810 [“The estate vests in the heir eo instante upon the death of the ancestor; and no act of his is required to perfect title. The estate is cast on the heir by operation of law without regard to his wishes or election. No assent or acceptance is necessary. He cannot, by any act, cause the estate to remain in the ancestor, for the latter is incapable of holding it after his death. He cannot, by any renunciation or disclaimer, prevent the passage of title to himself.”].)

Thus, a party cannot “skip” probate, and the proposed distribution must be amended to distribute all of Charles Van Dyke’s share to the personal representative of his estate.

Review of Distribution to Probate Advance.  Pursuant to Probate Code section 11604.5, the Court will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the execution of, and the consideration for, the written agreement between Charlie Van Dyke and Probate Advance, LLC to determine whether the requirements of section 11604.5 are met, and to determine if the terms of the agreement were obtained by duress under the circumstances.

Petitioner’s attorney must notify Probate Advance, LLC to appear at this hearing, where a briefing schedule and hearing will be set to discuss the following:

  • Duress.  Whether the agreement at issue was obtained by duress.  Discussion as to why a loan at an effective interest rate of between 145% and 155% would be necessary, when there was an alleged $300,000+ value of the estate in the Petition for Letters of Administration.
  • Usury.  Probate Advance must show how the loan given to Mr. Van Dyke does not violate California usury law at Article 15 of the California Constitution, and usury laws in the California Civil Code:

The California Constitution, article XV, section 1, states “No person, association, copartnership or corporation shall by charging any fee, bonus, commission, discount or other compensation receive from a borrower more than the interest authorized by this section upon any loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action.”2 The essential elements of usury are: (1) The transaction must be a loan or forbearance; (2) the interest to be paid must exceed the statutory maximum; (3) the loan and interest must be absolutely repayable by the borrower; and (4) the lender must have a willful intent to enter into a usurious transaction. (See generally, 4 Miller & Starr, Cal.Real Estate Law (2d ed. 1989) § 10:2, p. 650 [hereafter Miller & Starr]; Comment, A Comprehensive View of California Usury Law (1974) 6 Sw.U.L.Rev. 166, 174.) The element of intent is narrow. “[T]he intent sufficient to support the judgment [of usury] does not require a conscious attempt, with knowledge of the law, to evade it. The conscious and voluntary taking of more than the legal rate of interest constitutes usury and the only intent necessary on the part of the lender is to take the amount of interest which he receives; if that amount is more than the law allows, the offense is complete.”

(Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 798.)

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?