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 James Glen Wiseman

Case Number

23PR00413

Case Type

Decedent's Estate

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 04/17/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition to Determine Claim to Real Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.  After supplement, the following is noted for the court:

Defective Service.  Service of Petitions pursuant to section 850 of the Probate Code is governed by section 851, which references CCP section 413.10:

At least 30 days prior to the day of the hearing, the petitioner shall cause notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition to be served in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on all of the following persons where applicable:

(1) The personal representative, conservator, guardian, or trustee as appropriate. 

(2) Each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property.

(Prob. Code, § 851(a).)  According to that chapter of the CCP, service of the petition must be on the person (CCP, §§413.10; 415.10) the same as a civil summons, with exceptions for mailing and publication as that law provides when the serving party proves the petition “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served…” (CCP, §415.20(b).)

The Proof of Service on file does not show personal service on all interested parties, thus has not satisfied due process.

Petitioner argues that “[t]he only party claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of the property … is James Glen Wiseman” (Supl. at ¶2), thus only the Personal Representative of Mr. Wiseman’s estate has a right to personal service of the petition.  This is incorrect.

Petitioner admits the subject property is titled in the name of James G. Wiseman, which title was obtained by fraud and/or undue influence, and thus properly an asset of the trust of Linda M. Overton.  As a matter of law, this means all persons claiming an interest in the property are the legal heirs of Mr. James G. Wiseman and the designated beneficiaries of the Linda M. Overton Trust.  Both Petitioner and the documents filed in this case identified those persons as follows: MICHAEL WISEMAN, MATTHEW WISEMAN, HANNAH WISEMAN, and VALERIE WISEMAN. 

Since petitioner is one of those four persons, he need not give notice to himself. (Prob. Code, 1201.)  However, Matthew, Hannah, and Valerie Wiseman need not asset a claim to be considered a person claiming an interest in the subject property, if the Court can clearly determine their interest from a recorded document or estate planning documents on file.

Since the plain language of the statute controls (Professional Engineers in Cal. Gov’t v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037)[1], any person with a cognizable interest must receive personal service of the notice of hearing, or waive said notice in order to satisfy Due Process.  If these persons appear at the hearing, they may on the record waive the notice defect.

Once proper service has been completed, any objecting respondents must file a written objection before the next hearing.  The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver.

It is recommended the hearing be continued to a date set by the Court at the hearing, to allow sufficient time for re-service in conformity with the new rule.

[1] “‘The principles of constitutional interpretation are similar to those governing statutory construction. In interpreting a constitution's provisions, our paramount task is to ascertain the intent of those who enacted it.... To determine that intent, we ‘look first to the language of the constitutional text, giving the words their ordinary meaning....’ If the language is clear, there is no need for construction.... If the language is ambiguous, however, we consider extrinsic evidence of the enacting body's intent.’”

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?