Tentative Ruling: Estate of Lewis Alonza Hamilton

Case Number

22PR00369

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/18/2026 - 09:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On July 3, 2024, this Court ordered the removal of both Erik Black and Justyn Hamilton as personal representatives of the Estate of Lewis Alonza Hamilton. On August 28, 2024, this Court granted a petition appointing the Public Administrator the successor personal representative of the Estate of Lewis Alonza Hamilton and denied Mr. Black’s request for appointment as successor.

The reasons Mr. Black and Mr. Hamilton were removed were clearly and expressly outlined in probate notes posted for several hearings before the removal of both persons. Specifically, notes posted for the May 14, 2024, May 29, 2024, and July 2, 2024 hearings.

On May 14, 2025, Mr. Black filed a petition for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting payment for services performed to the estate before he was removed.  The matter came on for hearing on May 7, 2025, and was continued to June 18, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the Court struck the statutory fees request and ordered that matter be decided upon final distribution.

On March 3, 2026, the Public Administrator filed a Petition for Final Distribution, which is the only matter currently on calendar.  The petition does not apportion statutory fees between Mr. Black and the Public Administrator, so the Court will have to determine whether Mr. Black is owed any fees, since the Court reserved judgment on that issue on June 18, 2025.

Petitioner included no allegation related to the issue of the statutory fee being shared with the previous administrator and attorney for administrator.  In spite of a probate note to do so, no supplement was filed informing the court of any settlement with the administrator and previous attorney, and whether the fee will be split with those persons. However, Mr. Black filed a Declaration stating his position on the fee split, claiming the entire statutory fee should be paid to Mr. Black due to malfeasance on the part of the Public Administrator, and delay to the estate.  This argument should be rejected.

As stated in previous probate notes before Mr. Black and Mr. Hamilton were removed, the failure to follow proper procedural guidelines set by the Probate Code and California Rules of Court caused a morass of issues in this case that resulted in Mr. Black and Mr. Hamilton operating as co-administrators appointed at the same time, and a conflict of interest with Mr. Black representing Mr. Hamilton.  This, alone, was justification for removal.

The reduction or absolute denial of any fee to either Mr. Black or his client (Mr. Hamilton) is warranted, because Mr. Black calculated his portion of the statutory fees incorrectly, and deserves to have his portion of the statutory fee reduced or denied for causing procedural complications in the administration of the estate that created an unnecessary delay in the administration of the estate of two or more years. (Prob. Code, §12205.) Letters were issued to Mr. Black’s client in November of 2022 and a petition for final distribution was not filed until April of 2024, which revealed a procedural morass the court had to resolve by appointing the Public Administrator.  But-for Mr. Black’s failures to follow proper procedural guidelines for getting a qualified person appointed as personal representative, this estate could have easily closed in early 2024.  Thus, it is recommended the Court grant Mr. Black’s request for reimbursement of costs, but significantly reduce or completely deny Mr. Black’s request for statutory fees dependent upon the position of the Public Administrator at the hearing.

Guardianship of Dalaney Hamilton.  According to the initial pleading filed in this case, Dalaney Hamilton is a minor, aged 12-13, and is represented by her mother as guardian ad litem, who was either divorced or never married to the decedent.  Dalaney Hamilton is entitled to 33 and 1/3 percent of the estate, which includes a sizable value in real property.  This requires a guardianship over the estate be established. (CRC, Rule 7.950, Prob. Code, §§3600-3613.)  The Court should not approve Final Distribution until the Guardianship over the estate is established.