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 Joanne Bentley

Case Number

24PR00110

Case Type

Spousal Property

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/24/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition: Spousal Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

On June 3, 2024, the Court ordered the following to be submitted:

  • Supplement containing evidence of how the subject property was paid for (i.e. community or separate funds).
  • Supplement containing evidence that the Decedent’s children have no interest in the subject property.

The following was previously noted for the Court:

The petition admits that the subject property was inherited by Decedent during her marriage to Petitioner.  Property acquired by a spouse by gift or inheritance is separate property, regardless of when it is acquired. (Fam. Code, §770.)

Petitioner claims the property is quasi-community property, but does not explain why, or give any support for this classification. “Quasi-community property” is real or personal property acquired by either spouse while domiciled elsewhere, that would have been community property if acquired while domiciled in California, or property acquired in exchange for such property. (Fam. Code §125.) Since the record shows the subject property is located in the State of California, and was received via inheritance, it does not appear from the record that the subject property is quasi-community in character, but is 100% separate property.

As a result, the Court must deny Petitioner’s request to confirm his community property share at paragraph 1b of the Petition, and 7a of the proposed order, and can only determine that a 33.33% share of the property passes to the Petitioner, at most, because Decedent died leaving 3 issue, and Probate Code section 6401(c)(3)(A) requires division of separate property split among surviving spouse and more than one surviving issue as 1/3 to spouse and 2/3 split among the issue.

Appearances:

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

Meeting ID: 161 797 5412

Passcode: 8749009

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?