Estate of Luis Alfonso Magana

Case Number

24PR00499

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/17/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following issues are noted for the Court at the hearing:

Amended petition re: distribution.  Petitioner proposes to distribute 2/3 real property to two minors, and 1/3 to their adult sibling, as well as what appears to be a substantial sum of cash, pursuant to the CUTMA provisions Part 9, Division 4 of the Probate Code.  The problems with this request are two-fold, but both relate to issues with supervision of the minors’ estates.

First, Petitioner’s proposed distribution to the minors in this case is disfavored by the courts, because the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act does not offer the protection afforded by a guardianship of the estate.  CUTMA lacks a desirable mechanism for the Court to exercise its “continuing jurisdiction” over the “money and other property paid, delivered, deposited or invested” granted by Probate Code section 3612.  Simply stated, the transfers under CUTMA are rarely monitored by the Court after distribution, because they do not come before the court for regular review like the procedures governing guardianship estates require.  This is the reason for Local Rule 1735 requiring funds to a minor be distributed to blocked accounts, if no guardianship over the estate is established.

Second, the proposed distribution does not address oversight problems with the duties the minors’ mother will owe the minors if she continues to live in the real property at issue.  Mother owes the minors a duty of support suitable to the minors’ circumstances. (Fam. Code, §3900.)  The duty of support means that the minors are not expected to pay for their mother’s housing, utilities, groceries, auto, fuel, etc. expenses out of their own funds.  This means the minors mother will need to pay a reasonable sum for rent to the minors, as well as for the utilities and necessities of life.  These payments cannot be monitored under the CUTMA provisions adequately.

Since real property cannot be protected like a blocked account protects cash and securities, and since monitoring mother’s duties to the minors is not adequately protected by CUTMA provisions, the petition must be amended to propose distribution to the guardian of the estate of the minors, and a guardianship be established.  Otherwise, the real property must be sold and all cash and securities held by this estate be distributed to a blocked account for the minors’ benefit until they reach the age of majority.

Estate not in a condition to be closed.  The California Franchise Tax Board filed a creditor’s claim in this case, and has not filed a notice of satisfaction or withdrawal of creditor’s claim, or the requested special notice.  The estate is not in a condition to be closed until the CFTB files that letter.  (Becker v. Nye (1908) 8 Cal.App. 129, 132.)

This fact, coupled with the need to establish a guardianship over the estates of the two minors in this case, indicate the estate is not in a condition to be closed.

New Proposed Order.  A proposed order must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the AMENDED petition (Local Rule 1724(b), subd.(d)) and contains the proper language outlined in the Probate Code at Part 10 of Division 7, so the court can make the requisite findings and orders required to close out the estate and order final distribution. PRECISE AMOUNTS FOR CASH AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION MUST BE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER.

It is recommended that the matter be continued to a date to be set by the Court at the hearing, unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).)  If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered.

 

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