Matter of The Meyrs Stockton Family Trust

Case Number

24PR00707

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/26/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition to Determine Title to Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

After supplement filed on February 25, 2025, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

Record Title.  Petitioner asks the Court to make a finding affecting title to mineral rights connected to real property, but the evidence before the Court needs clarification regarding the chain of title to that property.  Clarity is required because the description of the mineral rights in the petition does not match that contained in any evidence before the Court.

The description of the subject property in the petition is located at paragraph 17 as follows:

Stockton Family Mineral Rights

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 ... "

That description is given again in the prayer for relief at page 11 of the Petition at Prayer D:

The "Stockton Family Mineral Rights" more particularly described as "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"

That description of property is not found within any evidence before the Court. 

In support of the chain of title, Petitioner offered into evidence a Kern County Probate Court final distribution order that appears to have been issued on September 18, 1969, and recorded on September 19, 1969.  Within that court order the following property descriptions were listed for distribution:

1. All of Section 29, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, M.D.M., Kern County, California, except all oil, gas, and mineral rights.
2. All of fractional Section 30, Township, 26 South, Range 29 East., M.D.M., Kern County, California, excepting and excluding all oil, gas and mineral rights.
3. West half of northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, M.D.M., Kern County, California, excepting and excluding all oil, gas and mineral rights.
4. A right of way for road purpose and for movement of livestock and for incidental purposes over and across the following described property, to wit: Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 26 South, Range 28 East and Sections 19, 20, 21 and 28, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, M.D.B.M., Kern County, California, as said right of way is more fully described in that certain deed recorded in Book 2543; page 149 Official Records of Kern County.
5. An easement for, and an undivided 3/11ths interest in the presently existing pipe line distribution system from the springs described in Parcel 2 of that certain deed recorded in book 2543, page 149 of Official Records of Kern County, California, together with the right of ingress and egress on Sections 24, 25 and 26, township 26 South, Range 29 East, M.D.M., Kern County, California.
6. An undivided half of the beneficial interest in the unpaid principal and interest balance owing on various notes secured by trust deeds received by the decedent through the decree of distribution of the Olive Chubb estate.

(Pet. at exh. D, digtl. pp. 64-65.)

As it is plainly obvious from the description of the title in the Petition, compared to the descriptions of the title in the Kern County Probate Court order listed above, there is no congruency between the two property descriptions on any level.  Not only is there no mention of Section 31, Township 31, or Range 27 in the Kern County Probate Court order, but the Kern County Probate Court order does not distribute any mineral rights at all.  Numbers 1-4 of the Kern County Probate Court order specifically except mineral rights, and 5-6 do not contain any mineral rights.

It seems petition is aware of this problem from the allegations at paragraph 25 of the Petition, which alleges the following:

Although the Mineral Interests are not specifically listed in the Probate Order, the Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that they are currently titled in STEPHEN DABNEY STOCKTON, Trustee of the Testamentary Trust established under the Will of Marion J. Stockton, deceased, as a result of the following language on Page 2 of the Probate Order:

" ... that the following described property, and all other property not now known, be, and the same is hereby, distributed in the following manner:

An undivided 1 /2 thereof to Eva H. Stockton

An undivided 1/2 thereof to Eva H. Stockton and the successor trustees mentioned in the Last Will and Testament, in Trust ... "

(Pet. at p. 5.)

Confirmation of title cannot be based on speculation. Those allegations in the petition are speculative and cannot be relied upon to confirm chain of title.  

A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” [Citation.] (Bruno v. Hopkins (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 801, 825.)  “In an action for the recovery of real property, it must be described in the complaint with such certainty as to enable an officer, upon execution, to identify it.” (Civ. Code, §455.)

Since the only evidence before the Court being offered to show chain of title is the order from the Probate Court in Kern County, and since no previously recorded deed is on filed showing that Marion Stockton held title to the subject mineral rights so they could be passed to Eva Stockton via the Kern County Probate Court order, the Court cannot grant the petition as presented.

It is, therefore, recommended the Court order the Petitioner to submit recorded title to the subject mineral rights showing the Marion J. Stockton held title to the mineral rights before his death, which would allow the Court to confirm title to Eva Stockton and her successors in interest.

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