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 Ingrid Birthe Helene Barr

Case Number

22PR00393

Case Type

Decedent's Estate

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/13/2023 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition Pursuant to Probate Code §10589

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.  The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

The Petition should be stricken.  The petition was not filed in conformity with the laws of this State, and should be stricken from the record. (CCP, §436(b).)  There are two primary flaws in the petition that reveal the petitioner does not understand what procedures to properly employ in order to seek the relief supported by the allegations in the petition.

The first is a general citation to Probate Code section 10589, without specifying the governing subdivision.  Petitioner cited generally to Probate Code section 10589 for the authority to bring this petition, but that section of the Probate Code contains two subdivisions governing how a personal representative is to properly proceed in order to obtain relief.  Since it appears from the allegations in the petition that this matter involves a disputed sale of real property, subdivision (a) governs the procedure, with which this petition does not comply:

(a) If the proposed action is one that would require court supervision if the personal representative had not been granted authority to administer the estate under this part and the personal representative has notice of a written objection made under Section 10587 to the proposed action or a restraining order issued under Section 10588, the personal representative shall, if the personal representative desires to take the proposed action, take the proposed action under the provisions of this code dealing with court supervision of that kind of action.

(Prob. Code, §10589(a) [emphasis added].)  The Probate Code has detailed procedures in place to conduct a court-supervised sale of real property. (Prob. Code, §10308, et seq.; Form DE-260 Report of Sale and Petition for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property.)

The second flaw clouding the Court’s ability to proceed on the petition is an absolute lack of request for relief (i.e. prayer) in the petition.  As stated by Professor Witkin,

[T]he prayer is important for a number of reasons:

(1) It determines jurisdiction of the court where jurisdiction depends on the amount in controversy. (See 2 Cal. Proc. (6th), Jurisdiction, § 23.)

(2) It is of some value, though less significant, in determining the legal or equitable nature of the action for purposes of jurisdiction or jury trial. (See 2 Cal. Proc. (6th), Jurisdiction, § 51; 3 Cal. Proc. (6th), Actions, § 135.)

(3) If the complaint is uncertain, the prayer may sometimes be examined to clarify and support the allegations. (See Hails v. Martz (1946) 28 Cal.2d 775, 777 [prayer may be relied on to ascertain plaintiff's theory of action].) And, although it cannot cure an insufficient pleading, “it certainly may be considered when determining the probability of the pleader being able to amend to state a cause of action.” (Lane v. Davis (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 302, 310.)

(4) It determines the scope and extent of a default judgment. (See infra, § 510.)

(4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th Plead § 507 (2023) “Nature of Prayer.”)

Since the petition is completely missing a prayer, the Court must divine what relief can be granted from the allegations of the petition.  (Berg v. Investors Real Estate Loan Co. (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 808, 815.)  Since the allegations all relate to court confirmation of sale of real property, and since the proper procedure for requesting that relief is to use form DE-260 and statutes supporting that form (Prob. Code, §10308 et seq.), petitioner cannot obtain any relief from the petition currently before the court.

Accordingly, the Court should either strike the petition from the record sua sponte (as it was not filed in conformity with California Law), or deny the petition without prejudice.

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?