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.

Guardianship of Evangelina Amor Hansen

Case Number

24PR00119

Case Type

Guardianship - Person

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 08/27/2024 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Competing Petitions to Appoint Guardian of Person

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Personal appearances (no Zoom) required by all parties and counsel.

Procedural Status

On March 4, 2024, Yolanda Aguirre and Jorge Aguirre filed a Petition for Temporary Appointment of Guardian and General Appointment of Guardian. The first hearing on that petition (March 19, 2024) was of no moment, because of several procedural defects affecting Due Process.  The matter was continued to April 2, 2024.  That petition received written objection by Alyssia Hansen, the Biological Mother of the minor at issue.  That objection places this matter at issue, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)

On May 20, 2024, Josh Colgate filed a competing Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person.  A written objection to Mr. Colgate’s petition was filed by the Aguirres on June 21, 2024, placing that matter at issue, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve.

Recommendation to Strike Improper “Motions” and Sanction Movant

Attorney for minor’s mother filed two documents titled “Motions” in what appears to be a request for relief from prior court orders related to custody and soberness testing.  Within those “Motions” are ZERO citations to any authority in support of the relief requested, and the motions fail to follow fundamental rules of procedure outlined by the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court, such as points and authorities, grounds, legal argument, admissible evidence, etc.  (CCP, §1010; CRC, Div. 11, Ch. 2 [Rules 3.1110-1116].)

It is recommended the Court strike the two “motions” as not filed in conformity with California Law (CCP, §436(b)), and order sanctions against moving party’s counsel as a result of filing such papers after the admonishment given previously, which is reproduced here:

It is obvious from the filings in this case that counsel for both parties lacks experience in the area of guardianship law, which could overly complicate what should be a simple case.  The filings reflect a lack of understanding of proper procedure governed by the Probate Code and Rules of Court.  The Court may want to issue case management orders in an effort to stem multiple improper filings that will waste court time and resources.

Judicial staff had to wade through a swamp of improperly used Judicial Council forms meant for Family Law, “motions” that contain no legal analysis or any citation to statutory or stare decisis case authority for the relief requested, and filings that appear to be pre-trial posturing for a non-existent would-be trial date in civil law, which has no place/is not appropriate in Probate Court.  There is also no request for an evidentiary hearing or an accompanying discovery schedule on file.  Despite all those filings, there is no notice to anyone entitled to notice on file, except the attorney for the mother of the minor, which does not comply with Probate Code section 1220.

It is recommended the Court admonish the parties to follow the mandated procedures in the Rules of Court and Probate Code for the prosecution of guardianship cases, and warn of sanctions if the parties continue to fail to do so.

Parties must come prepared to set dates for trial. Parties must come prepared to articulate discovery needs and deadlines.

Appearances:

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

Meeting ID: 160 543 3416

Passcode: 5053334

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?