| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Minor's Compromise
Prado in case no 25PR00553. That Petition was amended and filed on October 31, 2025. The Amended Petition received objection by Alberto Perez Licerio on January 6, 2026, placing the Amended Petition at issue, which requires 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.)
On February 17, 2026, Alberto Perez Licerio filed a Petition for Appointment of General Conservator over person and estate. This petition was filed, without explanation, in a different case (no. 26PR00078), was accompanied by a Petition for Temporary Conservatorship, and was not accompanied by a Notice of Related Case. This petition received objection by Teresa Saucedo on February 25, 2026, placing the petition at issue, which requires evidentiary hearing to resolve.
While the filing of Mr. Licerio's petition in a separate case could be considered a mistake, the fact that it was accompanied by a Petition for Temporary Conservatorship and there was no Notice of Related Case filed in either case number, raises a presumption of gamesmanship that this court should not tolerate, and warrants sanctions. Parties must come prepared to discuss any discovery needs and come prepared to set dates for trial.
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
Tentative Ruling: Matter of Miguel Grijalva Tentative Ruling: Matter of Miguel Grijalva Case Number
Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Minor's Compromise Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Personal (in-person) appearances required, including the minor. (CRC 7.952.)
It is recommended the Court grant the petition, but deny the request for a structured settlement. The petition to approve the claim of a minor prays for authority to use the balance of the proceeds of the settlement to invest in a structured settlement annuity with payments to the minor to commence when the minor becomes an adult. While the petition is marked at item 19b(3) as a request that the balance "be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, ..." what in fact is described in attachment 19b(3) is not a single-premium deferred annuity, but rather a structured settlement annuity.
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?”
While a structured settlement annuity may be the preferred option when the remaining balance is a significant amount, and where sufficient time remains before the minor reaches the age of majority so that the annuity is a prudent investment (see, e.g., Urbatsch & Hall, Settling a Minor's Lawsuit: A Procedural and Practical Primer (July, 2012), retrieved March 22, 2023 from https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/settling-a-minor-s-lawsuit-a-procedural-and-practical-prime r), there are significant concerns with such a disposition of the balance in the best of cases. The funds under consideration belong to the minor. They do not belong to the parent, the guardian ad litem, or the court. While the minor may currently lack legal capacity to control the property, it still belongs to the minor.
"Juveniles are entitled 'to acquire and hold property, real and personal' (Estate of Yano (1922) 188 Cal. 645, 649); and 'a minor child's property is his own . . . not that of his parents.' (Emery v. Emery (1955) 45 Cal.2d 421, 432; see also Civ.Code, §202." (In re Scott K. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 395, 405.) The Civil Code §202 cited in Scott K. is now Family Code §7502 ("The parent, as such, has no control over the property of the child.")
While the desire of a parent or guardian ad litem to maximize the return on investment (or to prevent an immature 18-year-old from squandering funds) is understandable, those considerations are subservient to the autonomy that the claimant/minor will have once the age of majority is reached. When viewed as a whole, the statutory scheme for managing property belonging to a minor is to protect the property during minority, and to give it to the owner upon attainment of majority. That legislative intent is made clear in Sections 3612 and 3613, where the legislature limited the court's jurisdiction to make orders controlling the property of a person over the age of 18 who is not disabled.
Minor's Compromise petitions are both required and governed by §3600, et seq., of the Probate Code. Section 3602 governs the disposition of what remains after the Court orders the payment of expenses, costs, and fees (Prob. Code §3601.) As with all protective proceedings, the goal is the best interest of the person to be protected, but the protection of those best interests must be done within the structure provided by the Probate Code. In the case of money or property paid or delivered pursuant to compromise or judgment for minor or disabled person, the code provides several options. Each of those options makes the minor's property available to the minor upon the age of majority.
Guardianship of the Estate: One alternative, of course, is the establishment of a guardianship of the estate of the minor. (Prob. Code §1500, et seq.) Where there is a guardianship of the estate, the court may order the property into the guardianship estate, or may order it to be managed in another manner described in §3602. Those other alternatives mirror §3611's alternatives. A guardianship of the estate automatically terminates by operation of law "when the ward attains majority." (Prob. Code §1600(a).)
Blocked Accounts: If no guardianship of the estate is established, §3611 provides an exclusive list of available alternative options. Among those is an order to deposit the funds "in an insured account in a financial institution in this state...." (Prob. Code §3611(b).) Those funds belong to the minor, and are to be paid to the minor without further court order when the minor reaches majority.
Single-Premium Deferred Annuities: Another alternative is for the court to authorize the purchase of "a single-premium deferred annuity." (Prob. Code §3611(b).) A "Single-Premium Deferred Annuity," in this context, is defined by statute. Probate Code §1446 provides: "'Single-premium deferred annuity' means an annuity offered by an admitted life insurer for the payment of a one-time lump-sum premium and for which the insurer neither assesses any initial charges or administrative fees against the premium paid nor exacts or assesses any penalty for withdrawal of any funds by the annuitant after a period of five years."
While Section 1446 does not specify that the annuitant has access to the funds at the age of 18, the practical effect is not significantly different. It is seldom financially advantageous to purchase an annuity if the payout is fewer than five years away, making annuities generally a less desirable alternative for a minor over the age of 13. The result would be that the minor has full access to those funds at age 18.
Furthermore, the annuity allowed under Section 3611(b) is far less restrictive than the typical structured settlement annuity (SSA). The SSA simply does not allow the annuitant access to the funds except as allowed by the structure imposed in the annuity contract. That's the situation that leads to television commercials showing people yelling "It's my money, and I want it NOW." The danger of a young adult selling a structured annuity for pennies on the dollar is substantial, because that young adult's parents or guardian ad litem decided years ago to restrict the annuitant's access to their own money.
Appearances: