Estate of Armondo J Mendoza

Case Number

24PR00341

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/19/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Letters Administration

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On June 5, 2024, Andrew Mendoza filed a petition for Letters of Administration seeking appointment as administrator of this estate.  The probate notes outlined several defects in that petition, the following of which are still necessary to complete the procedural requirements of the Mendoza Petition:

Duties and Liabilities Acknowledgement (Form DE-147). The proposed personal representative must fill out and sign this form and submit it to the court. (Prob. Code, § 8404.) No such form was submitted.

Proposed Order (Form DE-140). A proposed order must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the petition. No such document was filed with the court.

On October 8, 2024, Probate Advance, LLC filed a Notice of Assignment from Stephanie Lean (surviving spouse of Decedent), showing Stephanie Lean borrowed $5,000 from Probate Advance, in return for a promise to pay $9,900 out of the proceeds from the estate upon final distribution.  On November 1, 2024, Advance Inheritance, LLC filed a Notice of Assignment from Stephanie Lean, showing Stephanie Lean borrowed $20,000 in return from a promise to pay $36,000 from the estate upon final distribution.

After those filings by both loan companies, Advance Inheritance filed on November 4, 2024, what appears to be a competing Petition for Letters of Administration, seeking appointment of James L. Leestma “to act as admin in pro per.”  Several issues with Advance Inheritance’s request were outlined in the probate notes. which required further briefing on 1) Advance Inheritance’s standing, and 2) validity of the assignment.  After supplement containing further briefing, the following is highlighted for the Court at the hearing:

Advance Inheritance, LLC does not have Standing to be appointed Personal Representative.  Petitioner is a lender that loaned the surviving spouse of the Decedent $9,900 for the payment of $36,000 from the surviving spouse’s share of the final distribution of the estate. This loan was to the surviving spouse for a promise to pay out of a share of the estate AFTER FINAL DISTRIBUTION of the estate, thus does not create a liability on the estate itself, only a liability on the surviving spouse to pay as much as she can from her distribution after the close of the estate.

Advance Inheritance, LLC cites to an ancient Supreme Court case for authority supporting the proposition that an assignment creates a lien in favor of the heir, and that lien grants standing to the assignee to administer the estate. To the contrary, the Supreme Court addressed no issue of standing in that case, but addressed a surety’s rights and priority to be paid out of the estate, over other claimants, when the administrator for whom the surety was given committed malfeasance:

The sole question presented by this appeal is as to whether by his assignment of all of his right, title, and interest in the estate of his deceased father consummated prior to the existence of any liability on the part of said George W. Wilson the said estate arising out of his misuse as such administrator of the funds and properties thereof a prior right had been created in the transferee of said assignment and interest of the assignee thereof to receive from said estate the full distributive share of said Wilson therein, and that such right was superior to the claim of said estate to be repaid the amount of his defalcations out of his distributive share of said estate and hence as to the right of this plaintiff to be repaid the amount which it had been compelled to pay to said estate by virtue of its suretyship.

(U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Mathews (1929) 207 Cal. 556, 559 [emphasis added].)

Not only does no case hold that an Heir’s assignee can be appointed administrator as a creditor, our Supreme Court has long held that an heir’s rights to the property in an estate cannot be exercised until final distribution, even though the heir’s title vests upon the death of the decedent:

But the heir must await the completion of administration and the determination of his heirship by the decree of administration before he can enter upon the enjoyment and possession of his vested right.

(Trippet v. State (1906) 149 Cal. 521, 530.  ] As is outlined in California Jurisprudence,

While title to a decedent's real property vests in the decedent's heirs and devisees, it does so subject to divestment by reason of the administration of the estate; thus, the vesting of title to the decedent's property in his or her heirs or devisees on the decedent's death does not carry with it the right of immediate enjoyment. The title that vests in the heir is subject to many conditions imposed by statute; for example, the heirs take title to the decedent's property subject to the decedent's debts.

The heir must await the completion of administration and the determination of heirship by the decree of distribution before he or she can enter on the enjoyment and possession of the vested right. Thus, the rights and duties of the representative intervene, and the beneficiaries finally come into possession and enjoyment of only such portion as may remain after execution by the personal representative of all his or her trusts, which are burdens on the estate in the nature of liens. Consequently, as against the heirs or devisees, the representative is entitled to possession and control of the decedent's property until distribution8 and may recover possession from a beneficiary.

(25 Cal. Jur. 3d Decedents' Estates § 877.)

Therefore, petitioner is not a creditor of the estate, but is a creditor of the heir, and thus cannot meet any definition of “interested person” in Probate Code sections 48 and 8000 because the right of Petitioner to any estate property does not arise until final distribution is ordered.

James Leestma, Esq. cannot be appointed Personal Representative, because he represents a party claiming a lien on an heir’s portion of the estate, which is a conflict of interest.  Mr. Leestma cannot represent his client, Advance Inheritance, LLC, and serve as personal representative of the estate, when his client is claiming an interest in a distribution of the Surviving Spouse’s share of the estate, especially when Petitioner argues that share gives her priority rights.  That scenario, on its face, is a conflict of interest that places Mr. Leestma in a position of choosing what is best for the surviving spouse to the detriment of all other heirs.

Not only is Mr. Leestma statutorily disqualified from appointment by Probate Code sections 8402, subdivision (a)(3), 8502 subdivisions (b) and (d), and 8465 subdivision (d)(1), but conflict of interest has been firmly held as encompassed in the “otherwise not qualified” language of Probate Code section 8502(b), which disqualifies a person from serving as personal representative. (Estate of Hammer (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1642.  Cited in Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, 106 [“However, the court concluded the evidence supported removal of the executor because he was otherwise not qualified.” (Hammer, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1642, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 190.) “[T]here is evidence the executor was incompetent in the sense that he possessed a conflict of interest with the beneficiary, lacked trustworthiness or was engaged in a scheme to advance his own self-interests at the expense of the estate and its beneficiary.”].)

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: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305