Estate of Armondo J Mendoza

Case Number

24PR00341

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/12/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Letters Administration

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The Court continued this matter from the February 19^th hearing due to a late filed supplement to the petition in response to the Probate Notes below. After review of that supplement, the following is noted for the Court:

On October 8, 2024, Probate Advance, LLC filed a Notice of Assignment from Stephanie Lean (surviving spouse of Decedent), showing Stephanie Lean borrowed $5,000 from Probate Advance, in return for a promise to pay $9,900 out of the proceeds from the estate upon final distribution.  On November 1, 2024, Advance Inheritance, LLC filed a Notice of Assignment from Stephanie Lean, showing Stephanie Lean borrowed $20,000 in return from a promise to pay $36,000 from the estate upon final distribution.

After those filings by both loan companies, Advance Inheritance filed a competing Petition for Letters of Administration on November 4, 2024, seeking appointment of James L. Leestma “to act as admin in pro per.”

James Leestma, Esq. cannot be appointed Personal Representative, because he represents a party claiming a lien on an heir’s portion of the estate, which is a conflict of interest.  Mr. Leestma cannot represent his client, Advance Inheritance, LLC, and serve as personal representative of the estate, when his client is claiming an interest in a distribution of the Surviving Spouse’s share of the estate, especially when Petitioner argues that share gives her priority rights.  That scenario, on its face, is a conflict of interest that places Mr. Leestma in a position of choosing what is best for the surviving spouse to the detriment of all other heirs.

Not only is Mr. Leestma statutorily disqualified from appointment by Probate Code sections 8402, subdivision (a)(3), 8502 subdivisions (b) and (d), and 8465 subdivision (d)(1), but conflict of interest has been firmly held as encompassed in the “otherwise not qualified” language of Probate Code section 8502(b), which disqualifies a person from serving as personal representative. (Estate of Hammer (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1642.  Cited in Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, 106 [“However, the court concluded the evidence supported removal of the executor because he was otherwise not qualified.” (Hammer, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1642, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 190.) “[T]here is evidence the executor was incompetent in the sense that he possessed a conflict of interest with the beneficiary, lacked trustworthiness or was engaged in a scheme to advance his own self-interests at the expense of the estate and its beneficiary.”].)

The Petition by Andrew Mendoza has not been dismissed.

On June 5, 2024, Andrew Mendoza filed a petition for Letters of Administration seeking appointment as administrator of this estate.  The probate notes outlined several defects in that petition.  Attorney for Mr. Mendoza indicated that Mr. Mendoza was agreeable to the appointment of Mr. Leestma as personal representative, and would be withdrawing his petition. That petition is still active, and has not been withdrawn/dismissed, because there has been no Request for Dismissal (Form CIV-110) filed to dismiss the case. That form is mandated by the Judicial Council.

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