Petition for Final Distribution
Petitioner, Tasha Bulowski, is the Personal Representative of the Decedent's estate. Petitioner served a Notice of Proposed Action on May 28, 2026, indicating the intent to sell the one parcel of real property owned by the estate.
On June 5, 2026, counsel for Decedent's child filed an objection to the Notice of Proposed Action. In response to the Objection, Petitioner filed this Petition for Confirmation of Sale on June 23, 2026, to which minor's counsel filed written objection on June 26, 2026. This places the matter at issue, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)
In addition to the objection filed by minor's counsel, the Petition is procedurally defective as follows:
Proof of Posting Notice of Hearing. There is no notice of this hearing posted on site at the court. Probate Code section 10308(c) requires Notice of the hearing on the petition for confirmation filed under subdivision (a) or (b) shall be given as provided in Section 1220 to the persons designated by that section and to the purchasers named in the petition, and posted as provided in Section 1230.
Supplement re: Overbid. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition must be alleged/completed, but were left blank/unalleged. Please submit supplement or amend the petition to complete the overbid process.
Proposed Orders (DE-260 and MC-355). A proposed order (DE-260) must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the petition, and Proposed Order to Deposit Funds Into Blocked Account (MC-355). No such document was filed with the court.
Tentative Ruling: Estate of Donald William Morgan Tentative Ruling: Estate of Donald William Morgan Case Number
Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 07/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required.
The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Assignment by Tabitha Morgan grossly unreasonable. 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 (Sec.Sec.6401, et seq.). (Prob. Code, Sec. 6400.)
Tabitha Morgan alleges in supplement that she is assigning 66.6% of her estate to family members for no reason other than charity. This is a gift, not an assignment, and does not justify or warrant the Court to deviate from the intestate scheme in the Probate Code. Ms. Morgan is free to give her inheritance away to anyone she pleases after the Court orders distribution to her in accordance with the law of California. Therefore, the Court should find the assignments grossly unreasonable pursuant to Probate Code section 11604, and order 50% of the estate distributed to Tabitha Morgan so the proposed distribution does not depart from the law of intestacy.
Tentative Ruling: Inez Ortiz vs American Honda Motor Co Inc Tentative Ruling: Inez Ortiz vs American Honda Motor Co Inc Case Number
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”