| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary
After review of the supplement filed on March 10, 2026, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Heirs Identified. According to the allegations in the petition, and the first supplement filed on March 9, 2026, the following heirs have been identified: William Kotaksa (jr.”) - Brother of decedent. Barbara Kotaksa Gruber - Deceased sister of decedent. Paul C. Gruber - Son of Barbara Kotaksa Gruber, nephew of decedent.
Further persons entitled to notice: Decedent's neighbors, "John and Patti" identified in the will. "Roger" identified in the will. "Roger's brother" identified in the will. The 'step children' of William Kotaksa. Proof of service must be given to these newly identified persons. Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-121). Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees, as well as on the Personal Representative (if not the petitioner) and special notice requestors. (Prob. Code, §§ 8100 & 8110.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person's representative. (§1220.) The Amended proof of service filed on March 9, 2026, did not include the persons listed above in the 'further persons entitle to notice' section.
Waivers of Bond. Bond must be waived by all adult heirs at law. Petitioner must file bond waivers (Form DE-142) for all heirs or devisees named in a will. There is no bond waiver on file for Paul C. Gruber, William Kotaksa, or any of the further persons entitled to notice above.
Original Will. An original will and any codicil to that will must be lodged with the Court. (Prob. Code, §§ 8200, et seq.) It is insufficient to attach a copy of the will to the petition without lodging the original.
Proof of Holographic Instrument (Form DE-135). The petition requests a holographic will or codicil be admitted to probate. All codicils must be proven in the same manner as a will (Prob. Code, §§ 88, 6110, 8222), and all holographic instruments must be proven by submission of evidence that that the holographic instrument is in fact in the testator's handwriting. Form DE-135 must be used to do so.
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?”
Supplement to the Petition. A supplement to the petition must be submitted naming (and more completely identifying) all known persons named in decedent's will and their relationship to Decedent. (Pet. at ¶8.) The Court has discretion to require service to these heirs pursuant to Probate Code section 1202.
Nomination of Administrator. The holographic will does not name an executor. Petitioner does not have priority of administration over William Kotaksa or Paul Gruber pursuant to Probate Code section 8461. Please submit a nomination from all those with equal or greater priority. A written declination must be filed by or on behalf of an individual who is entitled to priority for issuance of Letters of administration but does not desire to act, or evidence must be produced that the person with priority is not competent under Probate Code section 8402 or refuses to act. (Local Rule 1752(d)1.)
Tentative Ruling: Estate of Edward Valencia Tentative Ruling: Estate of Edward Valencia Case Number
Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 09:30
Nature of Proceedings Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required.
On January 20, 2026, Lisa Marie Valencia filed a Petition for Probate of Will and Letters Testamentary. On March 11, 2026, Rosalie Valencia filed an objection to the Petition of Lisa Marie Valencia. That objection was amended and filed on April 9, 2026, after a competing petition for Letters of Administration was filed on March 26, 2026. The Amended Objection of Rosalie Valencia plainly opposes both the appointment of Lisa Marie Valencia and the admission of the will offered by that petition to probate.
The Probate Notes for the March 18, 2026, hearing on this matter outlined the procedural requirements to properly contest both appointment of personal representative and a will. Only one of those procedures has been followed by the submission of competing petition for Letters of Administration. A contest to a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary may involve a contest to the appointment of the personal representative, a contest to the will, or both.
When appointment of a personal representative is contested, Probate Code section 8004 requires a written objection and competing petition be filed and served in accordance with Probate Code section 8110 [15 days, mail or personal service to all entitled to take by intestate, and each devisee, executor, and alternative executor]. (Prob. Code, § 8004, subd. (a).) The competing petition need not be published as long as publication of the first petition was completed according to statute. There is a competing petition on file, which places the appointment of a personal representative of the estate 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.)
HOWEVER, the procedure to contest the will has not been followed. When a will is contested, Probate Code section 8250 requires a written objection to probate of the will be filed, and a copy of the objection along with a summons be served to all those entitled to notice listed in section 8110 [all entitled to take by intestate, and each devisee, executor, and alternative executor]. The summons must be served according to the procedures in the Code of Civil Procedure Title 5, Part 2, Chapters 3 and 4 [§ 412.10 et seq].
The original petitioning party may file an answer to the objection, or demur, within 30 days after service of the summons. (Prob. Code, § 8250, subd(a) and 8251, subd. (a).) If a party fails to respond to a served summons within 30 days, the case is still at issue, but the non-responding party loses the right to further contest the appointment or the will. (Prob. Code, § 8251, subd. (c).)
Contrary to the baffling claims in the objection that no original will was filed, and the proposed order and letters do not match the requests in the petition, Ms. Valencia submitted what is absolutely an original will on January 29, 2026, and proposed order and letters that matched the relief requested in the petition on February 25, 2026, and January 20, 2026, respectively. THEREFORE, the admission of the will is NOT at issue, and will not be placed at issue until the above outlined procedure to contest the will is followed.
SANCTIONS. Both parties appear to have been aware that a dissolution case was pending upon the death of the decedent in this case. Thus, sanctions are warranted against both parties (CRC, Rule 2.30) for not filing a notice of related case pursuant to the requirement to do so by the California Rules of Court and ethical duties of candor, since rulings in the dissolution case (25FL01499) could potentially affect the outcome of the disposition of the estate, since those rulings affect claims involving property that is easily categorized as both part of the marital and decedent's estate (Rule, 3.300(a)(3)).
Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Yimi Bernardo Fuentes Orellana Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Yimi Bernardo Fuentes Orellana