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 Robert Ontiveros Jr

Case Number

23PR00481

Case Type

Decedent's Estate

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 01/30/2024 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Spousal Property Petition

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

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

Petitioner, Imelda Ontiveros, is the surviving spouse of the Decedent, Robert Ontiveros, Jr.  Petitioner requests the Court to confirm that real property owned by the couple during the Decedent’s lifetime is property that passes to Petitioner as the Decedent’s community property share. (Pet. at ¶7b and atchmnt. 7b.)

Petitioner alleged in supplement facts sufficient to show the subject property was entirely community property that rightfully passed to Petitioner via the law of intestacy.  However, at the hearing on the petition on November 28, 2023, Esperanze Ruiz appeared and, at minimum, lodged a creditor’s claim against the estate for expenses paid on behalf of decedent after his death.  At maximum, Ms. Ruiz appears to have objected.

Petitioner argues the creditor’s claim is stale, because of the statute of limitations found in Probate Code section 366.2 and 366.3.  There are no such sections in the Probate Code.  If Petitioner meant Code of Civil Procedure sections 366.2 and 366.3, which do contain statutes of limitations applicable against a decedent (i.e. not the decedent’s estate), those statutes do not apply to claims against the decedent’s estate for reimbursement of funds expended after the death of the decedent, which is what is involved in Ms. Ruiz’s creditor’s claim.

Creditor’s claims such as the one filed by Ms. Ruiz are governed by Probate Code sections 9000-9205. Particularly vital here, section 9100 et seq outlines the time for filing creditor’s claims, and requires notice for those time periods to be triggered.  Since the only notice that could be held to have triggered the running of the statute in this case is the Notice of Hearing filed with the Court on October 17, 2023, Ms. Ruiz’s claim filed on December 1, 2023 (less than sixty days later) is valid and due, unless evidence shows the veracity of the claim is in question.

However, it is noteworthy here to point out that without formal probate of the Decedent’s estate being opened, the procedures in Probate Code sections 9000 et seq are not applicable to the spousal property petition procedure.  Pursuant to the Probate Code provisions governing spousal property petitions, “the surviving spouse is personally liable for the debts of the deceased spouse chargeable against the property…” (§ 13550.)  Thus, if Petitioner refuses to pay the creditor’s claim, Mr. Ruiz must pursue collection of that claim in civil court.

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?