Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

We have been made aware of fraudulent text messages being sent to individuals claiming to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the court system. These messages often state that the recipient owes penalties or fees related to traffic violations or DMV infractions and may include a link or phone number to resolve the matter. 

Take these steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to a text message scam:

  • Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts — If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply.
  • Verify the source — If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels.
  • Call the DMV if you have concerns — The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133.

Please see DMV warning about fraudulent texts: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-warns-of-fraudulent-te…

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Matter of The Meyrs Stockton Family Trust

Case Number

24PR00707

Case Type

Trust

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/14/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition to Determine Claim to Real Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing, after review of all papers on file, and the transcript of the April 30, 2025, hearing:

The Petition should be denied, because the recorded documents do not reflect the same metes and bounds description of the mineral rights at issue in this case, so granting this petition would create a cloud on title and violate the Due Process rights of the true title holder to that property.

After a denied, improper ex parte attempt to have the court confirm title to property without a hearing, two subsequent, noticed hearings, and two supplements, there are now three descriptions of the subject property before the court.  Those descriptions are as follows:

  1. Description in the body and prayer of the Ex Parte Petition, Exhibit B of the 2014 iteration of the trust, and Schedule A of the 2022 iteration of the trust:

Undivided 3.57% more or less, interest in and to the mineral rights in a portion of Section 31, Township 31 South, Range 27 East MDM, Kern County ... "

  1. Alleged corrected description in the Second Supplement at ¶5:

An undivided 1/28th interest in all oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbon substances lying in or under the East ½ of the East ½ of Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 27 East M.D.B.M, in the County of Kern, State of California.

  1. Description in the Second Supplement at ¶9:

An undivided 1/14 interest to each of the of ... Clara S. Armstrong, Frank R. Armstrong, Irving I. Stockton, Jesse D. Stockton, Marion J. Stockton, Ralph T. Stockton, and Frances W. Stockton, in and to all oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbon substances lying in or under the East Half of the East Half of Section 30, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, MDB&M, in the County of Kem State of California.

To prove chain of title, Petitioner submitted three recorded documents:

  1. The January 20, 1964, Grant Deed executed by Warren Stockton as Executor of the Estate of Olive M. Chubb.
  1. The 1965 Final Distribution Order from the Kern Superior Court in the Estate of Olive M. Chubb.
  1. The 1969 Final Distribution Order from the Kern Superior Court in the Estate of Marion J. Stockton.

The first in time of the above documents contains the following description of the subject real property:

The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B.M.;

EXCEPTING AND RESERVING unto the grantor herein an undivided 1/2 interest in and to all oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbon substances lying in or under said land.

According to Petitioner, title to the mineral rights at issue in this case was created by the 1964 Grant Deed, when Warren Stockton reserved ½ of the mineral rights to the Estate of Olive M. Chubb.  There is no problem with Petitioner’s argument at this point.  The problem with Petitioner’s argument occurs at the very next step of the analysis.

According to Petitioner, Warren Stockton next transferred title to the ½ interest to the mineral rights under “The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B.M.” to 7 persons via the 1965 Final Distribution Order in the Estate of Olive M. Chubb. This transfer of title, according to the Petitioner, gave a 1/14th interest in the ½ interest of the subject mineral rights to Marion J. Stockton, as one of the seven persons named in that order.  It is at this point where the Petitioner’s argument fails.

In the 1965 Final Distribution Order giving the 1/14th interest in the ½ interest of the mineral rights to Marion J. Stockton, the metes and bounds description of the mineral rights is not congruent with the 1964 Grant Deed wherein Warren Stockton reserved the ½ right.  The metes and bounds description is as follows in that order:

…in and to all oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbon substances lying in or under the East Half of the East Half of Section 30, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, MDB&M, in the County of Kern State of California.

Despite the plainly different descriptions of the subject mineral rights as Section 30, Township 30, instead of Section 30, Township 31, Petitioner asks the Court to confirm that the subject Trust holds title to the mineral rights in Section 30, Township 31, going so far as to offer an alarming rationale on the record that the Court should just grant the petition because “People were messy. They often referenced the wrong location.” 

Not only was this rationale given without any citation to legal authority for that wildly errant proposition, but if the court were to believe such a proposition and grant the petition, it would defy literally centuries of established law on the exact precision required in an instrument used to transfer real property rights and title:

Parol evidence will not be admitted to help out a defective description, or to show the intention with which it was made, or to resolve an ambiguity in its terms; but the rule that the description must be certain and definite and sufficient in itself to identify the land, does not exclude evidence for the purpose of applying the description to the surface of the earth, and thus identifying it with the tract in controversy.

(Edwards v. City of Santa Paula (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 375, 380 [Citing Best v. Wohlford (1904) 144 Cal. 733, 737].)

To the contrary of Petitioner’s argument, the Final Distribution Order in the Estate of Chubb does not create a cloud on title to mineral rights under Section 30, Township 31 (specified in the 1964 Grant Deed), because the 1965 Final Distribution Order does not list Section 30, Township 31 as property owned by the Estate of Chubb. Therefore, the only cloud on title created by the 1965 Final Distribution Order would be on Section 30, Township 30 if the Estate of Chubb did not own the mineral rights to that property.

Stated another way, Petitioner failed to trace title in the subject mineral rights under Section 30, Township 31 from the 1964 Grant Deed to the subject trust.  According to the recorded instruments on record, title to the subject mineral rights is still held by Warren Stockton as Executor of the Estate of Chubb. Since the chain of title is not clear, the Court cannot confirm the Trust holds title.

Therefore, any cloud on title created by the 1965 Final Distribution Order issued by Kern County Superior Court, must be cleared via quiet title action in that court.  To be clear, the former posted notes never had a problem with the percentage interest, only the metes and bounds description.  Since the meets and bounds description does not appear to be correctable via amendment, it is recommended the Court deny the petition.

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

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?