Skip to main content.

PUBLIC NOTICE Reduced Hours of Operation – Clerk’s Offices

From December 22, 2025 – January 2, 2026, The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, will reduce phone hours and the public access operating hours of the Clerk’s Offices. For more information, click here.

Notice:

The court is aware of fraudulent messages and scams being sent to the public. For more information please click here.

Estate of Rosalia Rodriguez Gauna

Case Number

24PR00429

Case Type

Decedent's Estate

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 10/21/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Reconsider

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On October 29, 2024, the Order for Probate was issued in this case, finding decedent died intestate, and appointing Gilbert Gauna as administrator. On March 18, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Petition for Letters of Special Administration that implied, but did not ask for, this Court to remove Gilbert Gauna as administrator. The Court denied that petition.

On June 20, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Motion to Set Aside Order Denying Petition for Special Administration.  The Court denied the motion, both for the citation to false authority and on the merits, but gave Mr. Gauna an opportunity to file a Motion for Reconsideration to clarify the authority.

On September 2, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Declaration on Judicial Council form MC-030.  Within that declaration, Mr. Gauna attempts to clarify his legal position in the June 20th Motion to Set Aside.

It is obvious from the procedural defect of the Declaration, and its contents, that Mr. Gauna is struggling to understand the procedural requirements for obtaining relief with the Court.  However, even if the Court were to exercise discretion, the allegations/statements in the Declaration would not be sufficient to obtain the relief Mr. Gauna seeks, because Mr. Gauna was served notice of the Second Amended Petition for Letters of Administration in August 2024, and came to the knowledge of the purported will in December 2024.  Thus, at best, Mr. Gauna must have submitted the will by February 2025, but failed to do so until March 18, 2025.  At worst, he would have been required to submit the will for probate in January 2025, based on the Order for Probate being issued in October 2024.

Thus, even if all the procedural hurdles were overcome in this case by Mr. Gauna, the merits of any relief requested in any form to admit the will to probate, would be cut off by the statute of limitations in Probate Code section 8226(c).  Therefore, the Court should interpret the Declaration filed by Mr. Gauna as a Motion for Reconsideration and deny it. (Forrest v. State Of Cal. Dept. Of Corps.  (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172.  See also  Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199 (noting that 1992 amendment to CCP §1008 tightened diligence requirements).)

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?