Estate of Rayford Landon Jackson

Case Number

24PR00291

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/17/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

After review of all papers filed before December 15, 2025, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

Strike versions of the Final Inventory and Appraisal filed before December 10, 2025 – There are now four Inventories and Appraisals on file with the Court.  The last in time should be accepted, and the three former iterations stricken:

• 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 former 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 former Inventories and Appraisals, and accept the Final Inventory and Appraisal filed on December 10, 2025.

Erroneous Proposed Distribution. Petitioner submitted a second supplement on December 10, 2025, that contains points and authorities in support of the proposed distribution to the decedent’s parents.  The Points and Authorities miss the mark, because they focus on a ruling this Court made in Decedent’s pre-deceased spouse’s estate case on a Spousal Property Petition that distributed the community property share of the estate of Decedent’s pre-deceased spouse to Decedent as his sole and separate property.  That order has no bearing on the operation of Probate Code section 6402.5.

To put it simple, the Decedent could have recorded this Court’s order on the Spousal Property Petition, thereafter held title in the subject real property 100% as his sole and separate property, and his parents would still not be entitled to take 100% of his estate…period.  

This result is due to the operation of Probate Code section 6402.5, because Decedent failed to execute a will that contained his testamentary intent.  As a result, the State of California substitutes its own intent to distribute property as evenly across the table of consanguinity as possible, which requires this court to determine the character of the real property as of the date of death of the predeceased spouse, not the date of Decedent’s death:

(f) For the purposes of this section, the “portion of the decedent’s estate attributable to the decedent’s predeceased spouse” means all of the following property in the decedent’s estate:

(1) One-half of the community property in existence at the time of the death of the predeceased spouse.

(2) One-half of any community property, in existence at the time of death of the predeceased spouse, which was given to the decedent by the predeceased spouse by way of gift, descent, or devise.

(3) That portion of any community property in which the predeceased spouse had any incident of ownership and which vested in the decedent upon the death of the predeceased spouse by right of survivorship.

(4) Any separate property of the predeceased spouse which came to the decedent by gift, descent, or devise of the predeceased spouse or which vested in the decedent upon the death of the predeceased spouse by right of survivorship.

(Prob. Code, §6402.5(f).)  Thus, the law of the State of California (i.e. the intestacy laws) requires this Court to divide the real property at issue between his parents and the intestate heirs of his pre-deceased spouse, because 50% of the subject real property was the pre-deceased spouse’s community property on the date of her death, regardless of what a subsequent Spousal Property Petition order adjudicated.

Stated a simpler way, because Decedent failed to execute an estate plan, the State of California will execute its own.  That plan gives 50% of the value of the real property to the pre-deceased spouse’s heirs, no matter how remote their relationship to the pre-deceased spouse.

Thus, since Decedent died owning real property and was pre-deceased by a spouse by not more than 15 years, and since Decedent executed no will and had no issue, Probate Code section 6402.5 gives pre-deceased spouse’s heirs the pre-deceased spouse’s community property share of the estate.

Therefore, distribution cannot be solely to the Decedent’s parents, it must be split with the heirs of the pre-deceased spouse, AND THOSE HEIRS MUST BE 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.

Surcharge Fees paid in Escrow Statement.  Real property was sold, and the Escrow Statement on file shows three fees paid out of the escrow account that amount to pre-paid legal fees without court order:

• 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.)

The explanation in the supplement filed on December 10, 2025, does not resolve this issue.  According to the explanation in the supplement, the 123 Closed LLC fees were incurred by the ‘buyer’ of the real property for legal work performed to evict persons from the real property. However, this legal work was paid for out of estate funds according to the escrow statement, and those funds have not been approved by court order.

As a result of the myriad problems noted above, and the fees paid without court order, it is recommended the Court surcharge the statutory fee in this case by $11,500, and only approve a $1,000.

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