Estate of Patricia Evelyn Jones

Case Number

22PR00596

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/19/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances are required.

Supplement to the Petition on the following issues must be submitted:

1. Distribution to the heirs of Audie Massey. The proposed distribution differs from the distribution ordered by Decedent’s Last Will and Testament, which ordered 1/10th share of the estate to Audie Massey.  Since the allegations in the petition state that Massey post-deceased the Decedent in this case, California law requires distribution of Massey’s share to the personal representative of Massey’s estate.

Petitioner must provide Points and Authorities explaining how this court has authority to order distribution of Audie Massey’s share of the estate to the alleged children/hiers of that estate, and not to the personal representative of the Estate of Audie Massey. Petitioner must include discussion as to what evidence is before this Court that the total value of the estate of Audie Massey falls beneath the threshold for the small estate affidavit procedure outlined in Probate Code sections 13100 and 890 ($184,500 on date of death), and must point to evidence that the three alleged heirs of Audie Massey’s estate are the only persons entitled to take from that estate. Petitioner must also verify under penalty of perjury whether Audie Massey executed a will.

2. Unequal distribution to Angela Grove and Leonard Massey.  Supplement must also address why the distribution of the “Holiday Recreational Vehicle Park Owner’s Association” is not being distributed in equal shares to the 10 devisees named in the will.  It does not appear the unequal distribution to these two heirs was offset by higher distributions to the other 8 heirs.

3. Extraordinary Fees.  The $2,229.50 of extraordinary compensation requested to be paid to the attorney for the personal representative is not supported by facts warranting the award of those fees according to the discretion of this Court outlined in Probate Code section 10811 and CRC, Rule 7.703.

Payment of extraordinary fees is not guaranteed, and the Court has wide discretion to decide whether to allow extra compensation, even when services of an extraordinary nature are rendered.  (CRC, Rule 7.703(a). See also In re Fulcher's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 710, 718 [“The general rule is that the probate court has a large discretion in the allowance of fees for extraordinary services rendered on behalf of the estate.”)  “[T]he burden of proving the necessity for the services is on the representative claiming extraordinary fees for himself and his attorney.”  (Ibid.)

The sale of real property is an ordinary and usual occurrence in the administration of a decedent’s estate, thus does not automatically warrant extraordinary fees.  Unless circumstances during the sale of real property require the estate to incur “legal services” not normally needed during the sale and escrow process, the high value of real estate in this state generates a statutory fee award that is usually sufficient to compensate the personal representative and the attorney.  This is especially true when a real estate agent is used to effectuate the sale, as was used in this case. The standard courts use is “legal services in connection with the sale of property held in the estate.” (CRC, Rule 7.703(c)(1).)

In this case, the Court may consider that the statutory fee is reasonable and sufficient compensation when calculated on an estate where the decedent's personal residence was sold for $529,900, because no “legal services” were required to effectuate the sale of the property, other than brief contract review and associated tasks.  The policy behind statutory fee awards includes strong consideration of the complication of larger estates than that of smaller estates.  (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235. See also Estate of Getty (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 455 [discussing in dicta that massive statutory compensation can be sufficient to cover unexpected intricacies in estate administration]; and Estate of Hilton (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 890, 912-16 [citing In re Walker's Estate (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 792, 795] for the proposition that probate courts can disallow all extraordinary fees claims if they find statutory compensation sufficient, keeping in mind the legislature’s policy of subsidizing fees in more complicated estates with those easily earned in less complicated estate [“The Legislature merely determined, in substance, that any undercompensation involved in handling small estates would be equitably adjusted in the long run by overcompensation in handling larger estates.”].)

Thus, evidence must be submitted in supplement showing how the services outlined in the billing statements are legal in nature, and why they are above and beyond what would normally be performed in an estate of this size.

4. Unexplained high reserve request.  Petitioner requests $5,000 for a reserve amount.  Petitioner must explain in supplement why such a high reserve is required.  The following is from a well-respected treatise on this issue:

Although not required, it is advisable to include an estimate of closing expenses. Examples of estimated closing expenses include any estate taxes, interest, and penalties that will be paid after distribution; the cost of preparing final income tax returns for the estate; the cost of transferring securities to the distributees; the cost of reasonable storage, delivery, and shipping for distribution of tangible personal property to the distributees; and the cost of certifying and recording copies of the decree of distribution of real property. See Prob C §§11642, 11750, 11753–11754. Some courts require more detailed information about the nature and amount of the anticipated closing expenses. See, e.g., San Francisco Ct R 14.35(I)(3).

The personal representative may also wish to retain funds for any undisclosed or unknown liabilities, especially tax deficiencies later assessed against the decedent or the estate. Apart from the reserve for estate taxes, there are some drawbacks to setting the reserve aside specifically for possible future tax deficiencies. Such action indicates—especially if the reserve is a substantial one—misgivings about the validity of the estate's position. The reserve might also be considered a trust fund for payment of the taxes, thus extending the statutory period for assessment. See U.S. v Rose (3d Cir 1965) 346 F2d 985, 989.

In addition, if the personal representative requests that the court allow for a substantial reserve (or even a reserve of more than $5,000), some courts will refuse to characterize the distribution as "final" and will require additional accounts (or waivers) before permitting distribution of any balance of the reserve. For example, in Contra Costa County, the court will not characterize the distribution as final if the personal representative requests more than a nominal reserve. If the entire estate will be distributed to a single beneficiary, such as a trust established during the decedent's lifetime, a reserve may not be necessary.

(Cal. Dec. Est. Pract. (CEB 2023), §31.66.)

Accordingly, if the probable liabilities of the estate are so high as to require the requested amount in reserve, supplement should show why the Court should not find this estate not to be in a condition to be closed.

Distribution to Probate Advance.  Petitioner requests distribution to Probate Advance for three assignments made by three heirs of the estate.  According to the contracts on file, Probate Advance claims a right to $20,000 of the $31,507.51 to be each distributed to James, Michael and Tiffany Jones, due to a $10,000 loan given to each of the Jones’ on May, June, and August of 2023.  This equates to $30,000 in realized interest for a 659-day loan (at the latest), or $45.53 in interest a day, or $16,572.92 a year, which is a realized interest rate of 55.24%.  This rate exceeds the usury laws of this state by 45.24 percentage points.

Probate Advance must submit supplement showing why the Court should not find these loans grossly unreasonable pursuant to Probate code section 11604.5.

If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by 8:00 a.m. on March 18, 2025, it is recommended that the matter be continued to a date to be set by the Court at the hearing, unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).)  If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered.

 

Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305