Estate of Delbert David Wise

Case Number

24PR00113

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/07/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Review of Petition for Final Distribution and Objections

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

An Amended Petition for Final Distribution was filed by Rhonda Trujillo on April 3, 2025. The Proof of Service shows electronic service on that same day, which is several days short of the requisite time for service.  (Prob. Code, §§ 11601 & 1220.) In addition to the Due Process defect, the Amended Petition for Final Distribution contains many pleading errors that create confusion or ignore previous pleadings without explanation.

The following defects must be corrected before the petition can move forward:

Sufficient time for Franchise Tax Board to respond.  Notice must have been given not later than 90 days after the date letters are first issued. (Prob. Code, § 9202, subd. (c)(1).)

A previous iteration of the pleading shows the CFTB was served on February 11, 2025.  The CFTB has not had sufficient time to file a claim for any taxes owed from the estate, making the estate “not in a condition to be closed.”

Supplement re: Final Inventory and Appraisal – On April 3, 2025, an amended Inventory and Appraisal was filed and marked final.  There are now FOUR different Inventory and Appraisals on file that are marked “Final.” The first was filed on June 5, 2024, and does not comply with Probate Code requirements, because it was not signed by the Probate Referee, and contains several line items that are nonsense or not valued.  The second Inventory and Appraisal was labeled “corrected,” and also was not signed by the Probate Referee, contained erroneous or inappropriate entries, and attempted to account for losses.  The third was filed on February 28, 2025, and does not indicate whether the Inventory and Appraisal is corrected, supplemental, or amended.

Adding to the confusion, the Amended Petition for Final Distribution filed on April 3, 2025, lists three Inventories and Appraisals with different dollar amounts, without explaining whether those I&As are to be accounted for collectively or whether the last in time is the only one to be considered.

Petitioner must file a supplement explaining whether the last-in-time filed Inventory and Appraisal (4/3/2025) is meant to be the only Inventory and Appraisal considered by the Court to define the contents and value of the estate.

Defects in the Allegations within the Petition.  The following defects in the allegations in the April 3, 2025 Amendment require a supplement to the petition in order to comply with the relevant code section cited, or give the Court the necessary information to adjudicate the ability of the estate to be closed:

• Paragraph 3 is left blank. Paragraph 3 must be alleged in order to give the court (and subsequent order) the requisite information about administration of the estate.

• Paragraph 10 is left blank. A previous pleading alleges that the CFTB was served notice on February 11, 2025.  The allegation in the April 3, 2025 Amendment was left blank.

• Clarification of Paragraph 13.  Paragraph 13 alleges that there was only one Inventory and Appraisal filed, that Inventory and Appraisal was final, and the amount appraised for the inventory was $97,219.86.  Contrary to that allegation, there were two Inventory and Appraisals filed, the last in time being labeled “corrected” and valued at $97,219.86.

• Paragraph 16 contains a false allegation. Petitioner alleges there was no cash to invest in interest bearing accounts, but then contradicts that allegation in paragraph 29 by alleging $97,219.86 is in a trust account.  Clarification is required.

• Paragraph 20 and 22 left blank.  Paragraph 22 must be alleged in order to give the court (and subsequent order) the requisite information about administration of the estate and the condition of the estate to be closed.

• Proposed Distribution. The proposed distribution does not comply with the intestate distribution scheme in the Probate Code.  When a decedent’s estate does not pass by a testamentary instrument (by failure of transfer, or omission, etc.), that property passes to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in Division 6, part 2 of the Probate Code (§§6401, et seq.). (Prob. Code, § 6400.)

The Decedent died in 2020 leaving a surviving spouse and daughter.  Decedent’s surviving spouse died three years later.  Therefore, according to the intestate scheme of the state of California, the distribution of this estate should be distributed completely to the surviving spouse’s estate.   If there is a spouse, 1/2 of community property passes to that person. Thus, a living spouse is held to own all community property, since 1/2 of the community property passes to that spouse, and 1/2 of the community property is owned by that spouse. (Prob. Code, §§ 6401(a), 100.)  The same is true for quasi-community property. (Prob. Code, §§ 6401(b), 101.) 

Amended Proposed Order.  When the above defects are corrected, an amended proposed order must be filed that matches relief requested in the petition. (Local Rule 1724(b), subd.(d).)  Order must list every beneficiary and detail the shares to each, and must expressly state limitations or conditions on distribution.  (Prob. Code, § 11603.) 

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: 161 797 5412

Passcode: 8749009