Estate of Rayford Landon Jackson

Case Number

24PR00291

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/12/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

After review of all papers filed before October 27, 2025, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

Strike Final Inventory and Appraisal – There are now three Inventories and Appraisals on file with the Court, each are erroneous for the reasons listed here:

• Inventory and Appraisal, Partial no. 1. (Filed Sept. 5, 2024). This Inventory and Appraisal is erroneous, because it was filed as a reappraisal for sale, when no court order confirming sale was sought, and no previous Inventory and Appraisal was on file.  An initial inventory and appraisal must contain all known items of estate property, and appraisal value of those items as of the date of death of the decedent.

• Final Inventory and Appraisal (Filed July 31, 2025). This Inventory and Appraisal is erroneous because it inventories the cash proceeds from the sale of real property that was listed in the Sept. 5, 2024, Inventory and Appraisal.  This is merely a change in the form of assets, not a new item of property that needs to be inventoried. Its existence confuses inflates the value of the estate.

• Final Inventory and Appraisal, Corrected (Filed October 17, 2025) The last in time-filed Inventory and Appraisal appears to be an attempt to correct the first two erroneously filed Inventories and Appraisals, but fails to do so because it 1) lists the reappraised price of the real property in the first-in-time filed Inventory and Appraisal, and 2) is not signed by the Probate Referee.

All three Inventories and Appraisals violate the rule of valuing the decedent’s estate as of the date of death.  This is because title vests at date of death in the person to whom it is devised or inherited.  (In re Estate of Meyer (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 799, 810 [“The estate vests in the heir eo instante upon the death of the ancestor; and no act of his is required to perfect title. The estate is cast on the heir by operation of law without regard to his wishes or election. No assent or acceptance is necessary. He cannot, by any act, cause the estate to remain in the ancestor, for the latter is incapable of holding it after his death. He cannot, by any renunciation or disclaimer, prevent the passage of title to himself.”].)

It is, therefore, recommended the Court strike all three Inventories and Appraisals, and order Petitioner to obtain and file a Final Inventory and Appraisal that appraises the subject property as of the date of death of the Decedent.

Ambiguous and Problematic Allegations in the Petition.  The following allegations create ambiguity or problems as noted:

• Paragraph 12 of the Petition alleges the estate is in a condition to be closed, but Paragraph 20 alleges Petitioner has not paid all debts, making the estate not in a condition to be closed. 

• Paragraph 21 claims both federal and state taxes are filed and owing, and no clearance letter has been received, but Paragraphs 22 and 23 allege no state or federal tax is due or payable.

An estate that owes debts and is solvent enough to pay them is not in a condition to be closed.

Statutory Fee miscalculated.  Petitioner calculates the statutory fee from erroneous Inventory and Appraisal filings, and does not account for the loss on sale of the real property at nearly $100,000. The fee cannot properly be calculated until the Court is made aware of the value of the estate real property on the date of death of the decedent.

Erroneous Proposed Distribution. Proposed distribution still erroneously lists the decedent’s parents as the proper heirs of the estate.  Despite Petitioner’s argument to the contrary, 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.)

Specifically problematic in this case is that the Decedent died owning real property and was pre-deceased by a spouse by not more than 15 years.  This scenario triggers the protections in Probate Code section 6402.5, which gives pre-deceased spouse’s heirs the pre-deceased spouse’s community property share of the estate when a decedent dies leaving no issue, which is what happened in this case.

Petitioner’s attorney appears to argue that the Spousal Property Petition procedure in Probate Code section 13500 et seq. somehow cuts off the rights of the pre-deceased spouse’s heirs so that Probate Code section 6402.5 cannot take effect.  This is legally incorrect, thus there is no reason to take judicial notice of the previous Spousal Property Petition, because Probate Code section 6402.5(f) plainly states that the character of the property “for the purposes of this section” is determined (and, therefore, traceable) to the time of death of the pre-deceased spouse.

Therefore, distribution cannot be solely to the Decedent’s parents, it must be split with the heirs of the pre-deceased spouse, which still have not been given notice.

Petitioner’s attorney appears to believe that the pre-deceased spouse did not have heirs, because she did not have children.  This is also legally incorrect. When a decedent leaves no issue, and has no living siblings or issue of siblings, the table of consanguinity moves to issue of grandparents.  Thus, the “next of kin” analysis must be used to determine who will take the pre-deceased spouse’s community property share of the real property.

Accounting or Waivers.  Because the Decedent’s pre-deceased spouse’s heirs are entitled to distribution, they must waive a final account by 1) filing a written waiver of account (Prob. Code, § 10954, subd. (a)(1)); OR by filing 2) proof of adequate provision for satisfaction in full of the person’s interest (Id., subd. (a)(2)). No such document was filed.

The final account must be submitted, if not waived. (Prob. Code, § 10951.)  The final account must contain all items listed in Probate Code section 1061:

• (1) The property on hand at the beginning of the period covered by the account, which shall be the value of the property initially received by the fiduciary if this is the first account, and shall be the property on hand at the end of the prior account if this is a subsequent account.
• (2) The value of any assets received during the period of the accounting which are not assets on hand as of the commencement of the administration of an estate.
• The amount of any receipts of income or principal, excluding items listed under paragraphs (1) and (2) or receipts from a trade or business.
• Net income from a trade or business.
• Gains on sales.
• The amount of disbursements, excluding disbursements for a trade or business or distributions.
• Loss on sales.
• Net loss from trade or business.
• Distributions to beneficiaries, the ward or conservatee.
• Property on hand at the end of the accounting period, stated at its carry value.

Supplement re: Fees paid in Escrow Statement.  Real property was sold, and the Escrow Statement on file shows three suspect fees paid out of the escrow account:

• A retainer fee to 123 Closed LLC of $3,500
• An assignment fee to 123 Closed LLC  of $5,000
• Attorney fees to Maribel Aguilera of $3,000.

The attorney’s fees to Ms. Aguilera are especially concerning, because they appear to be extraordinary fees the Court has not authorized:

The personal representative must neither pay nor receive, and the attorney for the representative must not receive, ordinary or extraordinary fees in advance of a court order authorizing their payment. Cal Rules of Ct 7.700(a). A representative who pays compensation without a court order acts at his or her peril. If an account shows payment of compensation without court order, the court may impose sanctions, including removal or surcharge that may include interest at the legal rate from the date of payment. Cal Rules of Ct 7.700(b). An attorney may also be disciplined by the State Bar for taking extraordinary fees before seeking approval. See Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443.

(Cal. Dec. Est. Practice, (Cont. Ed. of the Bar, 2021), §30.54.)

Petitioner must submit supplement explaining these fees, including the purpose, necessity, and result of paying such fees.

Appearances:

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

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305