Estate of Ronny Edwin Mendez

Case Number

24PR00611

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 10/13/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

The following must be submitted:

Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-120).  Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees, and any special notice requestors.  (Prob. Code, §§ 11601 & 1220.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person’s representative. (§1220.) 

There is no Proof of Service of the Notice of Hearing (DE-120) on file.

Amended Final Inventory and Appraisal – The Final Inventory and Appraisal does not meet all the requirements outlined in Probate Code sections 880 et seq.  The Final Inventory and Appraisal must be amended to meet the following requirement:

• Contain certification that Change in Ownership Statement was filed with county recorder or assessor, unless decedent owned no real property (Prob. Code, 8800, subd. (d)) (i.e. Petitioner must file the appropriate notice indicated in Paragraph 5b, and check that box.)

Supplement to the Petition. 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.) 

The intestate scheme in the Probate Code dictates that when a person dies without issue or spouse, the entire estate passes to decedent’s parents equally. (Prob. Code, § 6402(b).)  Yet here, Petitioner inexplicably requests distribution be only 10% to each living parent and 80% to Decedent’s sister, who does not take at all. Petitioner must submit supplement explaining how this Court has authority to deviate from the Probate Code to order the requested distribution, otherwise 100% of the estate will be distributed to Decedent’s parents to be dived equally, and they may do with the estate what they wish thereafter.

Supplement re: Escrow Statement.  Petitioner erroneously alleges at paragraph 17 that Petitioner took no action without prior court approval, for which notice was required under the IAEA, despite real property listed in the Final Inventory and Appraisal, and a gain on sale of the real property listed in a schedule attached to the petition.  If there was no sale of real property, the real property listed in the Final Inventory and Appraisal was somehow magically converted into cash ready for distribution listed at paragraph 29 of the Petition, the real property nowhere listed.   Thus, it appears real property was sold, but no Escrow Statement is on file.  The escrow statement is a requisite filing to satisfy the final report requirements of the Probate Code (Prob. Code, § 10954(c)(1)), and the California Rules of Court (Rule 7.550):

Allegations of all actions taken under IAEA, including:

• sales, purchases, or exchanges of assets (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(2))
• changes in the form of assets (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(3))
• assets on hand (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(4))
• a list of costs of administration, IF reimbursement of administration costs is requested  (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(7))
• a list of the amount of any fees or commissions paid or to be paid (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(8)), and the calculation of such fees or commissions as described in CRC, Rule 7.705(b) (CRC, Rule 7.550(b)(9))

The requirements of Rule 7.550(b) mandate an escrow statement for any sale of real property must be submitted in support of the final report.

Supplement re: Statutory Fee Recalculation.  The Statutory Fee in this case is miscalculated as $16,688.23.  The formula for calculation of statutory compensation is set out in Probate Code §10800(a).

To properly calculate a statutory fee, the total appraisal of the estate in the Final Inventory and Appraisal, must be supplemented with proper gains and losses on sale. That total is then used as the Value of Estate Accounted for, and

compensation is 4 percent on the first $100,000, 3 percent on the next $100,000, 2 percent on the next $800,000, 1 percent on the next $9 million, one-half of 1 percent on the next $15 million, and a reasonable amount to be determined by the court on amounts greater than $25 million.

In this case, the statutory fee is miscalculated because the Value of Estate is inflated by Petitioner improperly adding a $41,799.48 increase of value to the retirement fund, and a $175,000 gain on sale for a real property sale unsubstantiated by an escrow statement. According to the Final Inventory and Appraisal, the stated value at the date of death of Decedent of the retirement fund was $27,612.

Petitioner claims in an attached schedule to the petition that the retirement fund, at an unknown point in time, paid out $69,411.48, a sum of $41,799.48 greater than the sum at the time of death stated in the Final Inventory and Appraisal.  This is not a gain on sale that can be added to in a statutory fee calculation, unless securities were sold.  If money gains interest or value after the death of the decedent, there is no statutory provision or Rule of Court for including that gain in value in the statutory fee calculation.  It is not a gain on sale, because you cannot sell money for money. (Milana v. Credit Discount Co. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 335, 339.)

Thus, unless otherwise clarified by Petitioner, the proper calculation for the statutory fee for an estate value of $467,612 ($684,411.48-$41,799.48-$175,000) is as follows:

4% on the first $100,000          = $4,000

3% on the next $100,000         = $3,000

2% on the next $267,612         = $5,352.24

Total statutory compensation: $12,352.24

Proposed Order.  A proposed order must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the petition. (Local Rule 1724(b), subd.(d).)  Order must list every beneficiary and detail the shares to each, and must expressly state limitations or conditions on distribution.  (Prob. Code, § 11603.)  IF whereabouts of a distributee are unknown, the Proposed Order must provide for alternate distributes, and detail the share to which they are entitled per PC § 11603(c).  It is highly recommended petitioner use Local Form SC-6029.  No such document was filed with the court.

If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by 8:00 a.m. on October 10, 2025, 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: 161 797 5412

Passcode: 8749009