Tuolumne — Probate Notes for July 31, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_07312026.pdf

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

1 PR12773 Estate of Charles Clifford Collins, Jr 03/19/2026

Christopher Corbett Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Charles Clifford Collins

Letters of Administration

FURTHER

03/19/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/24/2026 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is the continued hearing on a petition to admit a foreign will to probate, and to issue Letters of Testamentary for the petitioning personal representative. At the earlier hearing, this Court surmised from a number of recitals contained within the testamentary instrument that the decedent intended for the law of South Carolina to control – and as such certain requirements must be met for this will to be considered self-proving under that law. See CA Probate Code §21103 and SC Probate Code 62-2-503. Since that time, counsel has secured a notarized statement (not drawn under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California) that the will is original and was properly witnessed by the attorney responsible for its drafting. Under the circumstances, this Court sees no issue with making the preliminary finding that there is sufficient evidence to permit its admission to probate – subject of course to any collateral attack by interested persons (ie, David). Notice to David is insufficient. Per Probate Code §8110, David was entitled to at least 15 days’ notice before the initial hearing, but only received notice (via mail and email) 9 days’ prior. There is no POS regarding the continued hearing date, or attached to the supplemental papers. This is particularly troubling given the false representation made by Attorney Zalenski in the Michigan case that this Court had already admitted the will and issued Letters.

What is the status of the Michigan action?

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 PR12644 Estate of Christian Douglas Pomeroy 05/08/2025

Suzanne Koerner Pro Per

Final Distribution Hearing

05/18/2026 Final Distribution File Tracking 05/09/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

No appearance is necessary. This is the initial hearing on a petition to approve a proposed plan for final distribution. There being only one devisee, the proposed plan for distribution is quite elemental and easily approved – though this Court notes that the plan made no reference to decedent’s Bank of America account (no doubt an oversight).

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

3 PR12205 Estate of Malcolm Sawin Kincaid 07/25/2022

Devin Evans Attorney: Tyler Dahl

Malcolm Sawin Kincaid

Carla Korda Attorney: Tyler Dahl

Review Hearing

Final Distribution confirmation from David.

08/30/2023 Report on Status of Administration File Tracking 02/11/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

No appearance is necessary. The Court, having considered counsel’s response to the previous notes, intends to approve the petition as prayed.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

4 FL19157 Veronica Garza vs. Jeremiah Graff 08/11/2025

Veronica Garza Pro Per

Jeremiah Graff Attorney: Juley Salkeld

Klayton Graff Attorney: Christine Parraz

Dalton Graff Attorney: Christine Parraz

Maddox Graff Attorney: Christine Parraz

Review Hearing - Visitation

Visitation Update / Moms Step

08/11/2025 Petition File Tracking 08/14/2025 High Density Other Cases FL19150

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Concerns: 1. “I have completed 157 Soberlink tests. All 157 tests were negative, and I have had no missed tests and no violations.”

2. “I respectfully request that the same 2-2-5-5 schedule be implemented for my older sons so that all of the children may have a consistent schedule with both parents.” On 03/16/2026, this Court issued an order on the DVROs granting Mother joint physical custody – which means she is entitled to continuing and frequent contact.

3. “Father does not provide me with information regarding who is caring for the children when he is at work.”

4. On 03/16/2026, this Court issued an order on the DVROs and included “standard Fl-341 conditions.” The actual forms were not included, but a standard FL-341 condition is to advise who is watching the children. See FL-341(D) Para 3.b.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 PR12719 In the Matter of the Coelho Living Trust Dated October 21, 1993 10/16/2025

Veronica L Hemphill Attorney: Alex Newsum

Alan Coelho Attorney: Cory Chartrand

Anne Coelho Pro Per

Christopher Coelho Pro Per

Stephen D Coelho Pro Per

Allison Brasil Pro Per

Natalie Hermanson Pro Per

Petition Hearing

Further: approval of settlement agreement

10/16/2025 Transfer In File Tracking 11/14/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is a petition to claw-back funds distributed to beneficiaries, allegedly in error. The math error stems from the sale of 130 acres in Hilmar, California, owned in part by the trust (having one defined set of beneficiaries) and in part by an LLC (with a similar, but not identical, set of members). According to the trustee, the trust beneficiaries received a little too much money because the escrow folks did not catch the fact that the trust’s 35% only attached to 58% of the 130 acres (ie, APN 045-091-017, not 045-091-017 + 045-091-018). In other words, the LLC members should have received a larger slice of the pie. The only person deeply impacted by this math error are Allison and Natalie (Dom’s kids), because they were only trust beneficiaries and not LLC members. Alan – who is being asked to refund $1,914.06 – filed objections to the petition, as well as his own petition accusing the acting trustee (Veronica) of mismanagement and conflicts of interest in the manner in which she administered the trust. Litigation was commenced in both Merced and Stanislaus Counties, even though it appears that a significant part of the trust administration was taking place here in Tuolumne County.

Although this Court was not involved in the underlying litigation, or the settlement conference, the parties have adequately explained the propriety of the agreement and – barring objection from the recent notice – the agreement will be approved.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

6 PR12740 The Estate of Martin A. Sample 01/06/2026

Amber Sanfeliz Attorney: Brandon Meyer

Martin Sample

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

01/06/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/18/2026 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

No appearance is necessary. This was to be the §8800 review hearing confirming compliance with the requirement to have on file a final I&A, and there is indeed a final I&A already on file.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

7 PR10510 Conservatorship of Carol A. Egan 10/02/2009

Reginald Chisholm Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Diane Egan-Dies

Carol A. Egan Pro Per

Linda Daniels Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

10/02/2009 Petition File Tracking 07/17/2024 High Density

Court is awaiting receipt of the investigator’s report, but anticipates a continuing need for the existing general conservatorship over the person.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

8 PR11918 Conservatorship of Kerry Swenson 02/11/2021

Kathleen Jacobson Attorney: Timothy Trujillo

Kerry Swenson

David Kirkpatrick Attorney: Timothy Trujillo

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

09/20/2024 Petition File Tracking 11/19/2024 High Density

Court is awaiting receipt of the investigator’s report, but anticipates a continuing need for the existing general conservatorship over the person.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

9 PR12538 Guardianship of Gracelynn Harwell, et al. 10/14/2024

Daniel Rutherford Attorney:Pro Per Jessie Castellano

Gracelynn Harwell

Aspen Rutherford

Otis Rutherford

Kathleen Rutherford Attorney: Jessie Castellano

Jeena Eunice Pro Per

Michael Rutherford Pro Per

Review Hearing

Confirmation of minor's counsel
Hearing: Other

Trial Setting - Appoint Long Term Guardian/Move Away
OSC Hearing - Visitation

OST

10/14/2024 Petition File Tracking 10/14/2024 Petition 02/04/2025 High Density

Concerns:

1. Minor’s Counsel. Pursuant to Probate Code §1470(a), "the court may appoint private legal counsel for a ward if the court
determines the person is not otherwise represented by legal counsel and that the appointment would be helpful to the resolution of
the matter or is necessary to protect the person's interests." Counsel is warranted here because this is (1) a petition to establish a
permanent guardianship, (2) a petition to terminate a temporary guardianship, and (3) a petition to establish a foreign residence
(§2352) of proposed wards. “If a ward is furnished legal counsel for a guardianship proceeding, the court shall determine whether
the parents are is financially unable to pay all or a portion of the cost of counsel appointed pursuant to this section. Any portion of the
cost of that counsel that the court finds the parents are unable to pay shall be paid by the county." §1470(b), (c)(3). Per CRC
Rules Appendix E, the parents are eligible to shift the cost to the county if they receive public assistance, are within 125% of the
federal poverty guideline, or lack disposable income beyond necessities of life.

2. Parent Visitation. Trial courts retain sufficient authority over guardianships to grant visitation rights therein. Probate
Code §2102; Guardianship of Zachary H. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 51, 61; Guardianship of Martha M. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 909, 911.
The litmus is similar to that used for guardians (Probate Code §1602), step-parents (Family Code §3101) and grandparents (Family
Code §§ 3102, 3104), to wit: the applicant must demonstrate with affirmative evidence that it is in the child’s best interests to have
said visitation. However, because parents have a Constitutional right of access absent termination of said rights (see Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-70 (2000)), the burden of proof which Mother must meet here is preponderance of the evidence. See,
e.g., Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010; Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 CA4th 1176, 1180-1181; in accord, Marriage
of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 225-226; Stuard v. Stuard (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 768, 824-825. Supervised visits are typically
ordered when the noncustodial parent (1) is the subject of a restraining order, (2) has made false allegations of child abuse, (3)
presents a risk of child abduction, (4) has been convicted of a serious felony, or (5) presents a risk of harm to the child. See Family
Code §§ 3027.5, 3030, 3048, 3100(b), 3031(c), 6323(d); in accord, Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1164.

Gracelynn: Matthew Johnson and Jenna Eunice
Aspen: Shawn Holp and Jenna Eunice
Otis: Michael Rutherford and Jenna Eunice

Mother: CMR75471; CRF76008
Father: CRF57613; CRM74711; CRM75601; CRM75774; CRF76144

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

10 PR12132 Guardianship of Paizley Hope Garcia 06/20/2022

Sandra Atwater Garcia Pro Per

Paizely Hope Garcia Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Gaylene Larwick

Brook Allen Pro Per

North Folk Rancheria of Mono Attorney: Katherine Hanson
Indians
North Folk Rancheria of Mono Attorney: Maureen Geary
Indians
Review Hearing

Trial Setting

05/08/2026 Termination of Guardianship File Tracking 03/16/2026 Cassandra Vigardt Other Cases FL17797

On 08/28/2015, co-guardian Gaylene filed a petition to suspend co-guardian Sandra after a disagreement arose regarding access by the biological parents. Many hearings later, Sandra appears amenable to stepping down and allowing Russell to substitute in her place. Biological father supports the change, which should hopefully ameliorate the ongoing tension in this otherwise successful guardianship.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

11 FL19519 Davie Hoskins vs. Wesley Dunn, Jr 05/18/2026

Davie Hoskins Pro Per

Wesley Dunn Pro Per

OSC Hearing

05/18/2026 Petition File Tracking 05/19/2026 High Density Other Cases PR12798

If parties agree to temporary guardianship, this case can be dropped from

calendar altogether.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

12 PR12798 Guardianship of Wesley Dunn III 05/18/2026

Ella Barendregt Pro Per

Wesley Ryan Dunn

Davie Hoskins Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Contempt/Failure to Comply

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER

05/18/2026 Petition File Tracking 05/19/2026 High Density Other Cases FL19519

Court investigator working on stipulated agreement.

7/27/2026 9:49 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 July 31, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

13 CVL67545 Velocity Investments LLC vs. Jaide Carney 08/14/2025

Velocity Investments LLC Attorney: Bryant Burnstad

Jaide Carney

Court Trial: Short Cause

Est. Duration: 1.00 Hours

08/14/2025 Complaint File Tracking 08/14/2025 High Density

No trial docs filed.

7/27/2026 9:49 am