Skip to main content.

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Matter of The Mikiso and Tomiko Mizuki

Case Number

25PR00114

Case Type

Trust

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/21/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Order Confirming Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

The following defect requires continuance of this matter:

Defective Service. The Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing was filed on form DE-120, which does not contain the requisite information for a Probate Code section 850 Petition to Determine Claim to Property.

Service of Petitions pursuant to section 850 of the Probate Code is governed by section 851, which references CCP section 413.10:

At least 30 days prior to the day of the hearing, the petitioner shall cause notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition to be served in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on all of the following persons where applicable:

(1) The personal representative, conservator, guardian, or trustee as appropriate. 

(2) Each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property.

(Prob. Code, § 851(a).)  According to that chapter of the CCP, service of the petition must be on the person (CCP, §§413.10; 415.10) the same as a civil summons, with exceptions for mailing and publication as that law provides when the serving party proves the petition “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served…” (CCP, §415.20(b).)

Further, section 851 requires Notices of Petitions pursuant to Probate Code section 850 “shall contain all of the following”:

(1) A description of the subject property sufficient to provide adequate notice to any party who may have an interest in the property. For real property, the notice shall state the street address or, if none, a description of the property’s location and assessor’s parcel number.

(2) If the petition seeks relief pursuant to Section 859, a description of the relief sought sufficient to provide adequate notice to the party against whom that relief is requested.

(3) A statement advising any person interested in the property that he or she may file a response to the petition.

(Prob. Code, § 851(c) [emphasis added].)  To ensure this information is in the notice, the Judicial Council created form DE-115 to be used for all petitions pursuant to section 850.

Thus, the proof of service must be submitted using Form DE-115, which became mandatory on January 1, 2020.

The proof of service filed does not conform to the above requirements, thus has not satisfied due process.

Once proper service has been completed, any objecting respondents must file a written objection before the next hearing.  The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver.

It is recommended the hearing be continued to a date set by the Court at the hearing, to allow sufficient time for re-service in conformity with the new rule.

PLEASE NOTE: The merits of the petition are governed by prior precedent that will likely require denial of the petition, not by Estate of Heggstad as cited by petitioner. Petitioner should amend the petition and include a discussion of the following authority, and how those authorities can be distinguished from the case before the Court:

  • Evidence Code section 662.
  • In re Marriage of Valli (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1396.
  • In re Marriage of Brooks and Robinson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176.
  • In re Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 336, 344, n. 5.

For reference only, the rationale in an unpublished case is informative in cases where a settlor titled a trust property outside of the trust and never places the title of the property back in the trust: In re Estate of Szanto (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 11, 2008, No. A116147) 2008 WL 643803.

Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 797 5412

Passcode: 8749009

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?