Tuolumne — Probate Notes for June 26, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/probate-notes-06262026_0.pdf

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

1 PR11626 Conservatorship of Gertrude Rose Fueg 12/18/2018

Gertrude Rose Fueg

John Durieux

Tamara - DECEASED Diaghilev

Mark Olson Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Accounting Hearing

12/18/2018 Petition File Tracking 03/03/2025 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 second and final accounting in the conservatorship of Ms. Fueg, who recently passed away at the age of 105. The Court, having received and reviewed the petition to approve the accounting with allocation for fees, intends to find no issues with the accounting and intends to approve the accounting as is. The petition does not include a specific request for transfer of the net balance to the personal representative of the estate, but that is of course presumed to be part of the request. Final discharge must await the filing of receipts and an inventory in the estate case of the conservatorship assets.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 PR12635 Estate of Annette Isabel Castanon 04/23/2025

Alex Vasquez Attorney: Byron Hales

Annette Isabel Castanon

Final Distribution Hearing

05/05/2026 Final Distribution File Tracking 04/23/2025 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 the proposed final distribution from this intestate estate. The Court, having received and reviewed the petition to approve the distribution with allocation for fees, intends to find no issues with the proposed distribution and intends to approve the petition as is. While this Court reserves the right to inquire as to the circumstances surrounding the disclaimers, and why the heirs did not at least seek a residual interest in the residence, the disclaimer form used by counsel covered all of the areas of inquiry this Court would entertain.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

3 PR12721 Estate of Blake Von Erickson 10/20/2025

Blake Von Erickson

Bruce Erickson Attorney: Ronald Hillberg

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

FURTHER

06/18/2026 Petition 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.

No appearance is necessary.

This is a petition to dismiss the proceeding for want of assets under Probate Code §12251. The petition carries with it the right of the personal representative to a discharge, insulating the personal representative from liability going forward. As a result, notice to all interested parties is required. While there is no proof of service upon Angela, this Court notes that she is the spouse of petitioner and perhaps notice to her is reasonably assumed to exist. This Court intends to grant the petition, but will reserve on the discharge of Bruce until Angela confirms notice of the petition to dismiss.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

4 PR12789 Estate of Brenda Joyce Loftin 04/24/2026

Kimberly Loftin Pro Per

Brenda Joyce Loftin

Determine Succ to Real Property

FURTHER

04/24/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/24/2026 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.

No appearance is necessary.

This is a by-pass petition to transfer decedent’s primary residence to her three devisees by will. Although notice is still technically deficient since it was not waived in the “consent to appointment” (see Para 8) and there is no proof of notice in the court file, the petition is otherwise in very good condition. At the previous hearing this Court noted an absence of proof of contemporaneous ownership at the time of filing this petition, and suggested that petition contact the recorder’s office or find an updated property tax bill. Petitioner filed, instead, recorded instruments showing that the property was owned by decedent in 2015. As a self-represented person, petitioner is doing a very good job but still needs to show proof of current ownership to have this petition granted. Court intends to continue the hearing unless petitioner secures said proof in time.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 PR12339 Estate of Doris Reed Coane 10/09/2023

Robert Thomas Coane Attorney: Tamara Polley

Doris Reed Coane

Jimmie Nixon Attorney: Tamara Polley

Petition Hearing

Final Distribution

01/15/2025 Petition File Tracking 02/26/2025 From Court-Probate on Calendar

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 the proposed final distribution from this testate estate. The Court, having received and reviewed the petition to approve the distribution with allocation for fees, intends to find no issues with the proposed distribution and intends to approve the petition as is. While this Court reserves the right to inquire further as to the extraordinary fees, this Court notes that counsel’s use of a paralegal to perform the bulk of those additional services reflects a good faith effort to keep administrative and litigation costs to a minimum. As such, the fees are approved.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

6 PR12715 Estate of Gertrude Rose Fueg 10/09/2025

Mark Olson Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Gertrude Rose Fueg

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

10/09/2025 Petition File Tracking 12/05/2025 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 a review hearing to determine compliance with §8800. A final I&A is presently on file so this hearing is unnecessary.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

7 PR12469 Estate of Mattew David Thomas 05/13/2024

Mattew David Thomas

Shelby Thomas Attorney: Rachel Patton

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER
OSC Hearing - Contempt/Failure to Comply

As to Attorney Patton

05/13/2024 Petition File Tracking 03/03/2025 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 received and reviewed the TUO-PR-125, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to extend the period of administration. This Court further finds that the response to the OSC is satisfactory and the OSC shall be vacated.

A new §12200 review hearing shall be set for 10/09/2026 at 8:30 a.m.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

8 PR12435 Estate of Robert W. Spearer 03/13/2024

Robert W. Spearer

Theron R. Spearer Attorney: Andrea Shoup

Theron R. Spearer Attorney: R. Dustin
MacFarlane
Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

03/13/2024 Petition File Tracking 10/24/2024 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 received and reviewed the TUO-PR-125, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to extend the period of administration. A new §12200 review hearing shall be set for 03/19/2027 at 8:30 a.m.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

9 PR12370 In Re: The Ylimaki Family Trust 12/01/2023

Susan Lunsford Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Robert Norman

John Hylinger Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Jimmie Nixon Attorney: Brandon Meyer

Review Hearing

Trial Setting

12/01/2023 Petition File Tracking 09/26/2024 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.

There appears to be some confusion regarding the events in this case.

On 03/27/2026, petitioners withdraw an objection to respondent’s request to continue the trial. The basis for the request for two-fold: (1) respondent was still unable to retain counsel; and (2) Linda had passed away, unbeknownst to petitioners. A new trial date was scheduled for 07/29/2026, with an asterisk that the hearing might convert to a settlement conference instead.

On 05/07/2026, this Court issued an Order After Judicial Review, noting that the hearing set for 07/29/2026 had to be moved due to bench officer unavailability. The parties were directed to meet and confer on new dates, and to appear at a trial setting conference on 06/26/2026 to discuss new dates.

On 06/18/2026, this Court received from petitioners a number of filed trial documents (witness list, exhibit list, motions in limine, trial brief) with an indicated trial date of 06/29/2026 at 8:30 a.m. Department 5 is dark on Mondays, and on that particular Monday the courtroom is in use by a visiting jurist hearing matters in a criminal matter. There is nothing occurring in this case on 06/29/2026.

Hopefully counsel will see this probate note and be prepared to discuss trial setting.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

10 PR12796 In re Knapp Revocable Trust of 2002 dated March 13, 2002 05/12/2026

Sandra Lisius Attorney: Bryan Andrade

Petition Hearing - Other

Suspension and Removal of Trustee; Accounting of Predecessor Trustee; Redress of Breaches

05/12/2026 Petition File Tracking 05/15/2026 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 initial hearing on a petition to immediately suspend the acting successor trustee in an effort to stave off further alleged breaches, and to install a new trustee to arguably clean up “the mess.” It does appear as though petitioner has effectuated personal service upon the respondent, but no response has been provided. It is this Court’s general practice, in the face of historical transgressions by the current trustee, to appoint a limited purpose receiver to marshal, inventory, and explain the history before immediately removing and installing a new trustee. Parties to discuss.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

11 PR12667 In re Sagaser Trust dated March 9, 2005 06/23/2025

Joseph Warren Sagaser Attorney: Nicholas Yonano

Matthew Sagaser Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Review Hearing

FURTHER status update / OSC- dismissal

06/23/2025 Petition File Tracking 06/24/2025 Gloria Doehring

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 trust petition seeking a formal accounting, an inventory of trust assets, and “instructions” regarding the manner in which assets believed to be held in trust should be distributed (or clawed back if need be). Efforts have been underway to bring the trust administration to a close, including preparation of a comprehensive accounting which the trustee has indicated will be submitted to the Court for approval. Parties to advise current status.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

12 PR12756 Maria J Armstrong Revocable Trust 02/13/2026

Sarah J Buurkarl Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Tracy Valett

Petition Hearing

FURTHER - claim of property

02/13/2026 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.

Related to CV67764, CRM74167 and CRM74526.

This is the continued hearing on an elder abuse and trust property claw back petition commenced by the settlor’s adult children against the settlor’s alleged “boyfriend” who reportedly secured title to assets earmarked for the settlor’s inter vivos trust.

The main asset (there are two others) appears to be settlor’s primary residence, which she acquired with her boyfriend in joint tenancy in November of 2018. A joint tenancy with right of survivorship “is an estate designed primarily to allow two or more persons who jointly own property to avoid probate upon the death of one of the joint tenants.” Walters v. Boosinger (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 421, 434. It is, by definition, an interest held by two or more persons “in equal shares.” Civil Code §683(a). Three months later, the settlor created her inter vivos trust, and listed her interest in the property as a trust asset. However, it was not until January of 2026 that the settlor recorded a deed transferring her interest into the trust, potentially severely the joint tenancy. See Civil Code §683.2; Raney v. Cerkueira (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 311, 320. Critically, joint tenants co-own the property for purposes of access and control, but each tenant has a separate financial existence from the others. See In re Brace (2020) 9 Cal.5th 903, 916; in accord, Dieden v. Schmidt (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 645, 653; Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1319. When a joint tenancy is severed, the presumption that each party has a 50% interest may be challenged via “allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” CCP §872.140. Any party wishing to rebut the presumption of equal ownership with evidence of disproportionate contributions may file a petition for that purpose. From there, “the court may order an equitable compensatory adjustment to compensate the tenant for her use of separate funds for the down payment on the residence and if the appropriate motion is made and granted the partition action may be consolidated with the present dissolution action.” Marriage of Leversee (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 891, 897; in accord, Marriage of Rico (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 706, 710. Sometimes that higher “contribution” is in the form of greater overall capital investment, and sometimes from sweat equity. See, e.g., Marriage of Brandes (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1472-1474; Marriage of Decker (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 842, 850-852. It is up to the tenant seeking an allocation in excess of a presumed pro rata share to make such a claim. Until the settlor effectively severs the joint tenancy, her boyfriend retains his right of survivorship.

Since that hearing, petitioner filed an amended petition. While no law (CCP §472, Prob. Code §1021, CRC 7.104) requires highlighting of the amendments made, it is customary to do so to allow the court to track changes. Although that was not done, petitioner appears to have added averments regarding the eviction of unnamed occupants (see Para 19) – which of course would require a separate UD action – and averments regarding a POA (see Para 8). Petitioner has served via publication.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

13 FL12561 Ruth D. Miller and Tannen J. Miller 01/24/2014

Ruth D Miller Pro Per

Tannen J Miller

OSC Hearing - Contempt/Failure to Comply

01/24/2014 Petition File Tracking 07/19/2023 Family Law Division

New to me … need full stip or send to Dept 2 where order was made.

Prior to 07/18/2023, parties agreed via stipulation that Husband would pay Wife $1,776/month in long-term spousal support. The stipulation was entered on July 18 of that year, but the court file does not include any certificate of mailing to the parties (potentially implicating Husband’s actual knowledge of the order).

On 05/22/2026, Wife filed an OSC re Contempt alleging that Husband “has failed to make the mandatory spousal support payments since a partial payment was received on November 12, 2024, and has failed to give any justification as to why the mandatory payments have not been made since the partial payment.” Wife shows arrears exceeding $30,000.

Pursuant to CCP §1218.5(a), “if the contempt alleged is for failure to pay child, family, or spousal support, each month for which payment has not been made in full may be alleged as a separate count of contempt and punishment imposed for each count proven.”

There is no proof of personal service upon Husband. See CCP §1016.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

14 CV68015 Thomas A Nelson vs. Jancy Harper 01/21/2026

Thomas A Nelson Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Jancy Harper

Cody Hall Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Trial Setting

01/21/2026 Petition File Tracking 01/28/2026 High Density Other Cases CV68075 CV67889

Trial setting (only) on EARO’s …

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

15 CV68075 Thomas Nelson vs. William Brown 02/06/2026

Thomas Nelson Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Cody Hall Attorney: Yet Not Entered

William Brown

Trial Setting

02/06/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/05/2026 High Density Other Cases CV68015 CV67889

Trial setting (only) on EARO’s …

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

16 PR12057 Conservatorship of Jill McClintock-Cole 02/18/2022

Tuolumne County Public Guardian Attorney: Sarah Carrillo

Jill McClintock-Cole

Accounting Hearing

FURTHER Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER

06/08/2026 Accounting: Other File Tracking 04/29/2024 High Density Other Cases CVL65145

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed the extended accounting (05/23 – 10/25), intends to find no issues with the proposed payment of fees/costs and and treatment of receipts and disbursements. Court intends to set biennial accountings.

The Court, having received and reviewed the investigator’s report, intends to find by clear and convincing evidence that a general conservatorship of the person and estate remains warranted. Court intends to set annual review.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

17 PR12800 Conservatorship of Mildred V. Childers 05/21/2026

Edward Jones Trust Company Attorney: Melisa Recendez

Mildred V. Childers

Edward Jones Trust Company Attorney: Melisa Recendez

Appoint Conservator - Person and Estate

Temp

05/21/2026 Petition File Tracking 05/27/2026 High Density

This is the initial hearing on a petition to establish a general conservatorship over the person and estate of an elderly female with alleged cognitive decline.

o Probate Code §1821(a)(5) requires petitioner to lodge “a supplemental information form” – commonly referred to as a GC-312.

o Probate Code §1822 requires petitioner to show proof of having provided at least 15 days’ notice to “the relatives named in the petition at their addresses stated in the petition.”

o Since the proposed conservatee appears to have several children with equal priority for appointment, a nomination to go outside the family (see Probate Code §1811) should be provided.

o Probate Code §1890(c) prohibits the entry of an order establishing a general conservatorship based on a lack of capacity to make medical decisions absent a physician’s capacity declaration. Petitioner is seeking this (see Para 1.k.).

o Probate Code §1471(a)(1) requires the appointment of counsel for a conservatee who does not plan to retain private counsel.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

18 PR12794 Conservatorship of Norma Davies Blackmer 05/08/2026

Norma Davies Blackmer

Zachary Young Attorney: Julie Hitt

Hearing: Other

Transfer In Hearing from Contra Costa County

05/08/2026 Petition File Tracking 06/03/2026 High Density

Pursuant to Probate Code §2217(b), “when a court receives the file of a transferred conservatorship, the court (1) shall send written notification of the receipt to the court that transferred the matter; (2) shall take proper action pursuant to ensure compliance by the conservator with the matters provided in Section 1456.5; and (3) may conduct a review, including an investigation, as described in Sections 1851 to 1853, inclusive.”

Q: When was the last full accounting?

Q: When was the last §1850 investigative review? o Investigator here has been appointed

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

19 PR11986 Conservatorship of Patricia Gillette 08/26/2021

Tuolumne County Public Guardian Attorney: Sarah Carrillo

Patricia Gillette Pro Per

Accounting Hearing

3rd

03/10/2023 Accounting: 1 Year File Tracking 10/17/2024 High Density

This matter is on calendar for the annual accounting. However, on 03/12/2026, the conservator advised that the conservatee passed away. As such, the due accounting should be modified to incorporate the pre- and post- death accounting periods. Conservator to advise what time is needed to complete, as the post-death accounting is generally expected to be filed within 60-90 days of death and we are quite close to this mark.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

20 CV68355 David Garrett vs. Daniel Hosack 04/24/2026

David Garrett Pro Per

Daniel Hosack

OSC Hearing - Civil Harassment

04/24/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/28/2026 High Density

This is a petition to restrain civil harassment between son and parents. At issue is use and enjoyment of their common residence. The salient facts are these:

On 09/29/1993, Hon. Hider of the Merced County Superior Court approved a compromise of a claim involving petitioner David (then a minor) for just over $100,000 (net).

On 04/12/1996, Evelyn, as David’s guardian ad litem, acquired for David the subject property.

On 06/05/2008, Evelyn executed a grant deed transferring interest in the subject property to David directly.

On 10/18/2019, David executed a grant deed gifting his interest in the subject property to his parents, Daniel and Evelyn. According to David, he did this at a time when he was hospitalized and concerned for his mortality. The medical records from that particular day do not reflect mortality, but instead shortness of breath.

On 08/14/2023, Daniel and Evelyn executed a grant deed adding David to title, creating a three-way joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

Q: Recent title report does not show David as owner, so was there a subsequent recording removing him from title?

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

21 CV68356 David Garrett vs. Evelyn Hosack 04/24/2026

David Garrett Pro Per

Evelyn Hosack

OSC Hearing - Civil Harassment

04/24/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/28/2026 High Density

See #20

Return file to party.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

22 PR11534 Guardianship of Alixzander Davis, et al. 03/19/2018

Colleen Steele Pro Per

Alixzander Davis

Nyome Davis

Keair Steele Pro Per

Motion Hearing - Visitation

FURTHER

03/19/2018 Petition: Other File Tracking 03/19/2018 Petition 04/18/2025 High Density

This is an established guardianship over the person of two wards (siblings), ages 9 and 15. According to the GC-251s, the wards have spent limited time with bio mom.

Mother’s Motion for Formal Visitation

On 04/15/2026, bio mom filed an RFO seeking visitation with four children, only two of whom are identified as wards in this guardianship. The other two appear to have been adopted, which means that bio mom has no legal right to any visitation order involving them. Bio mom contends that she previously had access to the children from 10am – 2pm on Saturdays and Sundays but that guardian (the maternal grandmother) has reduced that time. Bio mom would like daily visits during the summer from 9am – noon. Parties indicated that they will work it out.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

23 PR12801 Guardianship of Alohna Batt 05/22/2026

Desiree Tidball Pro Per

Shelbie Johnson Pro Per

Alohna Batt

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER

05/22/2026 Petition File Tracking 05/27/2026 High Density

GC-212 from SJ and DT #13 blank – why?

No consent from either parent. Bench warrant for bio mom CRM75934 and CRM71741 Mother personally served.

No notice to bio father.

No notice to grandparents.

Q: Where is child? Allegations call for CWS referral. Apparently with mother.

Unrelated petitioners (even though they call themselves “aunts”) but Vigardt agreed to accept appointment.

May need to appoint counsel

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

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

Daniel Rutherford Pro Per

Gracelynn Harwell

Aspen Rutherford

Otis Rutherford

Kathleen Rutherford

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER long term

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

Court is awaiting report from investigator before moving from temporary to permanent guardianship.

Court is awaiting formal motion to move-away by guardians, though the desire is made known – as is the objection by bio parents.

Bio parents have requested time to retain counsel.

Minor’s counsel will be appointed to assist the Court is determining whether a permanent guardianship with or without move-away would be in the best interests of the children.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

25 PR11515 Guardianship of Jackson Tyler Clement 02/07/2018

Mark Loren Clement Pro Per

Shannon Alicia Clement Pro Per

Jackson Tyler Clement

Accounting Hearing

8th

02/23/2024 Accounting: Other File Tracking 05/06/2024 High Density

Court is awaiting 8th accounting.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

26 PR12761 Guardianship of Nevaeh Clemens 02/24/2026

Sidney Clemens Pro Per

Nevaeh Clemens

Stephen Clemens Pro Per

Maresa Hampton Pro Per

Appoint Guardian

Trial Setting

02/24/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/10/2026 High Density

On 06/04/2026, this Court issued a written decision denying the petition for temporary guardianship and set the hearing today for selection of a trial date should petitioners desire to move forward with a petition to establish a permanent guardianship.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

27 PR12055 Guardianship of Steven L. Flores 02/14/2022

Ranada Morgan Pro Per

Steven Flores

Review Hearing

terminate by operation of law - minor turns 18 06/23/26

02/14/2022 Petition File Tracking 04/26/2024 High Density

No appearance is necessary.

There being no petition on file to extend the guardianship beyond the ward’s 18th birthday, this guardianship has terminated by operation of law.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

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

Ella Barendregt Pro Per

Wesley Ryan Dunn

Davie Hoskins Pro Per

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER

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

Father arrested 05/15/2026. No charges filed.

In the parentage case (FL19519) filed 05/18/2026: Mother sought sole custody of child based on Father’s DV Father responded requesting joint custody of child, but consented to Mother’s request for temporary sole custody based on DV DA not ready to file charges yet No mention of any guardianship need

In the guardianship case also filed 05/18/2026: Petitioner is paternal grandmother Petitioner claims Mother shot pellet gun inside home near infant Petitioner claims that Mother shaved infant’s head, and nicked skin Father gives full consent to guardianship (admitting unfitness?) Petitioner filed §278.7 declaration claiming legal right to custody On GC-210(CA): “I have not asked about the child's Indian heritage because the parents are unavailable or deceased.”

Proposed ward and bio parents are ICWA. Therefore: o The party seeking a guardianship via Family Code §3041 must ask the parents whether the child is or may be an Indian child. CRC 5.481(a)(1). o The court may not order an emergency removal or placement of the child without a finding that the removal or placement is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child … If the court determines that the child's emergency removal or placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child, the court must order the child returned to the physical custody of the parents or Indian custodian … An emergency removal must not continue for more than 30 days unless restoring the child to the parent would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm. CRC 5.484. o The court may not order placement of an Indian child unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that continued custody with the parent or Indian custodian is likely to cause the Indian child serious emotional or physical damage and it considers evidence regarding prevailing social and cultural standards of the child's tribe. CRC 5.485. o Placement preference shall reflect “the unique values of the child's tribal culture and is best able to assist the child in establishing, developing, and maintaining a political, cultural, and social relationship with the child's tribe and tribal community.” Probate Code §1459.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

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

Davie Hoskins Pro Per

Wesley Dunn Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Child Custody

FURTHER

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

See #28.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

30 FL17909 Andrew McGuire vs. Amber Manning 12/19/2022

Andrew McGuire Attorney: Nathan Nutting

Amber Manning Pro Per

Department of Child Support
Services
Amber Manning Pro Per

Andrew McGuire Attorney: Nathan Nutting

Motion Hearing - Child Custody/Visitation

Spc. set. JHGC

05/16/2024 OSC Application File Tracking 04/11/2025 Commissioner Streger

On 12/19/22, Father filed petition to establish parental relations over daughter (Rylie) age 1. He requested joint legal and physical custody. Child lived with both parents until a few months ago, then moved out with Mother.

On 06/14/23, Mother filed response conceding joint legal custody and parentage … but seeking sole physical custody with limited parenting time (1st, 3rd, 4th Sat and Sun 10 am – 2pm) due to his alleged neglect and substance abuse.

On 08/08/23, DCSS secured order for Father (welder) to pay Mother (lab tech) $799/month even with imputing income to Mother – using a timeshare of only 5% to Father. Some agreement was reportedly reached regarding custody, but there is nothing in the Court file. According to Father, parties reached stipulation and hearing was dropped (see Minute Order dtd 08/15/23).

On 04/02/24, Father filed an RFO seeking a reduction in support and joint physical custody with a step up plan to overnights.

On 05/10/24, counsel for Father indicated that the parties reached an agreement on a “step up” plan for Father, but once again nothing has been put in writing or filed.

On 08/22/24, Parties agreed to drop DVRO and made the following stipulations: Father to pay Mother $500/month in child support Father to have 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th weekends (Fri 6pm – Sun 6pm)

On 03/24/2026, parties stipulated to joint legal, joint physical, and Father receiving 1st, 2nd and 4th weekends – with the parties alternating the 5th weekend. Holidays by mutual agreement. Parties further agreed that father would pay $500/month in support.

On 04/24/2026, Father filed RFO seeking unspecified additional parenting time plus a school that is “between” their respective homes. Mother objects, noting that it is too much time in the car and that Father has already missed numerous allocated visits. Mother moved to Calaveras before any proceedings filed, which sets child’s home county as Calaveras, not Tuolumne.

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

31 PR12568 In re Thors Family Living Trust dated April 25, 2000 12/24/2024

Elizabeth Nunes Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Steven Thors Attorney: Sally Chenault

Matthew Henley

Donald Roy Thors

Teresa Mary Thors

Settlement Conference

11/18/2025 Petition File Tracking 02/20/2025 High Density

Off-calendar

6/22/2026 2:52 pm

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 June 26, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

32 CV68339 Petition of Marla Monique McKenzie 04/17/2026

Marla Monique McKenzie Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

04/17/2026 Petition File Tracking 05/05/2026 High Density

Nonconfidential name change.

No issues with petition here, but birth certificate is from Colorado and Colorado requires a CBI background and order from Colorado court. See CRS §§ 13-15-101 et seq.

“The petitioner shall be responsible for supplying fingerprints to the Colorado bureau of investigation and to the federal bureau of investigation and for obtaining the fingerprint-based criminal history record checks. The petitioner shall also be responsible for the cost of such checks.”

“The court shall order the petitioner to publish notice as provided in section 13-15-102 and file proof of the publication with the court.”

“To change a given name after one year, a legal change of name order must be submitted from a court of competent jurisdiction.” 5 CCR 1006-1-5

6/22/2026 2:52 pm