Tuolumne — Probate Notes for January 30, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_01302026.pdf

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

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

1 FL18750 Mark Basnight and Amy Basnight 09/11/2024

Mark Basnight Pro Per

Amy Basnight

Review Hearing - Custody/Child Support/Spousal Supp

special set Bifurcation / Support

09/11/2024 Petition File Tracking 02/04/2025 From Court-Civil Dispo

Off calendar (?)

Parties will need FLF for MSA and QDRO w/joinder, not just bifurcation and judgment

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

2 PR12608 Estate of John Jerome Ferles 02/28/2025

Joshua Ferles Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Contempt/Failure to Comply

As to Joshua Ferles
Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

FURTHER / OSC

02/28/2025 Petition File Tracking 03/17/2025 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.

Letters were never signed.

On 06/13/2025, this Court granted the petition to open probate and appoint petition to serve as the administrator. Although petitioner elected not to appear for the hearing, the order was signed. The Letters, however, were never signed by petition, and remain here in the court file. Nevertheless, an §8800 review hearing was set for this day, and it was assumed that petitioner would begin the process of preparing the Inventory & Appraisal. Therein lies the rub: the I&A is due within four months after letters “are first issued,” and letters are not considered to be “issued” until they have been signed, endorsed and filed (see Govt. Code §§ 69843 et seq). See St. John v. Superior Court (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 30, 39; Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 929. Of course, it was over 150 years ago that our Supreme Court made plain that “it is not the duty of the clerk to issue process until it is applied for.” Pimental v. City of San Francisco (1863) 21 Cal. 351, 353. Even though petitioner technically applied for letters by virtue of his petition filed back in February, and he did appear for the initial hearing on 04/18/2025, there was a question posed at that time where there were any assets subject to probate. Probate Code §12251(a) provides that “at any time after appointment of a personal representative and whether or not letters have been issued, if it appears there is no property of any kind belonging to the estate and subject to administration, the personal representative may petition for the termination of further proceedings and for discharge of the personal representative.” Although this statute conflicts with §8400(a), which provides that “a person has no power to administer the estate until the person is appointed personal representative and the appointment becomes effective [and] appointment of a personal representative becomes effective when the person appointed is issued letters,” who cares. If the estate has no assets, and the only other heir agrees, we can go ahead and have the case dismissed. Petitioner to advise.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

3 PR12563 Estate of Lona Mae Conley, et al. 12/17/2024

Dana Ruth Stemig Attorney: Gary Dambacher

Lona Mae Conley

Gary P Dambacher Pro Per

Terzich and Wilson Funeral Home Pro Per

Arnold B. Conley Jr. Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

12/17/2024 Petition File Tracking 02/05/2025 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.

This is the §12200 review hearing. There is no petition for distribution or status report on file. Counsel to advise.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

4 PR12514 Estate of Mark John Belletto 08/19/2024

Mark John Belletto

Alex Belletto Attorney: William
Broderick-Villa
Doctors Medical Center Pro Per

Discover Bank Pro Per

Bank of America Pro Per

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER

08/19/2024 Petition File Tracking 11/20/2024 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.

This is the §12200 review hearing. There is no petition for distribution or status report on file. Counsel to advise.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

5 PR12570 Estate of Roger Charles Daniel 12/19/2024

Jack Daniel Attorney: Aaron Castleton

Roger Charles Daniel Attorney: Aaron Castleton

Merced School Employees FCU Pro Per

CalStar

Final Distribution Hearing

FURTHER New Petition / orders?

08/28/2025 Final Distribution File Tracking 02/20/2025 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 an amended petition to approve the account, report, allowance for fees/costs, and distribution plan to the sole devisee. Previously, this Court had trouble following the various bouncing balls relating to asset sales, creditor claims, and existing cash on hand. Rather than submitting a simple amendment to the petition, an entirely new petition was submitted explaining the following: The creditor claim involved the balance due on decedent’s vehicle; The vehicle was sold for the amount of the debt, representing an estate loss from the I&A of $5,537.41; The residence sold for $215,000.00, representing an estate loss from the I&A of approximately $5,000.00.

Based thereon, the fee basis to counsel is $260,388.66 – which calculates out to a statutory fee of $8,207.77.

Counsel requests reimbursement for actual costs incurred ($2,358.62), but forgot to attach exhibit C to the petition. In the previous petition, the request for costs was lower ($1,923.62), and nothing has occurred in the interim – raising some question as to why the cost request has increased.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

6 PR12470 Estate of Sandra Leigh Burman 05/15/2024

Augustin Eugene Burman-Alston Attorney: Lily Harris

Sandra Leigh Burman

State of California Franchise Tax
Board
Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER

05/15/2024 Petition File Tracking 12/10/2024 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.

This probate action was released into the wild on 05/15/2024. Pursuant to Probate Code §§ 12200-12201, petitioner had twelve (12) months from then to file a petition for final distribution or a status report explaining the condition of the estate, the reasons why the estate cannot be distributed and closed, and an estimate of the time needed to close administration of the estate. For those needing to file a status report, this Court has created a very fine local form (TUO-PR-125) to ease the effort. A review of the court file reveals a glaring absence of either the final petition or a status report – for now the second time. Given the modest size of this estate, further delays may expose counsel to a §12205 fee reduction.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

7 PR12718 In Re: The Harry A. McCune, JR. Living Trust 10/14/2025

Kelsey McCune Cossel Attorney: Jason Pink

Petition Hearing

FURTHER - confirm trust assets

10/14/2025 Petition File Tracking 10/16/2025 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 the initial hearing on a petition to declare APN 599-111-009-000 and APN 500-141-012-000 assets of the Harry A, McCune Jr Living Trust dtd 12/01/2012. The trust is presently irrevocable following the passing of the sole settlor. A trial court may make a transfer of assets into an irrevocable trust beyond the life of the last settlor, pursuant to §856, if the last settlor presently owns the asset in question, the settlor created a trust to hold said asset, and there exists sufficient evidence to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the settlor intended the asset to be held in that trust but failed to make a legal record transfer by mistake, surprise, excusable neglect or innocent omission. See, e.g., Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548, 558-560; Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156, 160-161; Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1443; Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 950-951.

In this case, both the trust instrument itself, and the attached Schedule of Assets, specifically reference both parcels. Moreover, the settlor actually prepared and caused to be recorded quit claim deeds for both properties transferring them into the subject trust, though each deed contained an error in the APN. This Court has no trouble

concluding that the subject properties were intended to be held in trust, and that the failure to vest was only by decedent’s mistake. The transfer can and should be made. However, this Court notes that decedent passed away in 2013, and there is no evidence provided with the petition that the properties are currently held in decedent’s name. It is hard to imagine how an estate/trust was administered over the past 13 years without any actual authority to manage these two parcels. There is also the issue of venue, for petitioner’s scant reference to residing here is not alone sufficient: venue exists where the administration actually takes place (§§ 17002(a), §17005(a)(1)), which is often where the sole successor trustee resides, but not always. Has petitioner resided here in this County since 2013? Do any of the trust beneficiaries consent or object?

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

8 PR12351 In the Matter of Alice C. Hardin Trust 10/30/2023

James Hardin Pro Per

Ariane H. Matschullat Attorney: Joseph Doherty

Rowena H. Garon Attorney: Joseph Doherty

Alice C. Hardin

Jon Hardin Attorney: Leighton Burrey

Dambacher, Trujillo & Russell,
APLC
Debra Hardin Attorney: John Minton

Debra Hardin Attorney: Asher Anderson

Review Hearing

12/13/2023 Accounting: Other File Tracking 06/25/2025 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.

The Court, having received and reviewed the Trustees’ status report, the Receiver’s Sixth report, and the Petitioner’s
objection to the proposed insider sale and legal fees, provides the following indication:
o The objection vis-à-vis the legal fees is premature, as the fees incurred could be for ordinary administration
and not necessarily “defense” of fiduciary duty claims; the matter must be reserved for Phase 2.
o All the other properties have been approved for sale as proposed, and are expected to close within the next
15 days – clearing the way for resolution of the cabin permit.
o Although 85 Hope Lane remains reasonably valued at $700,000, a third-party sale in its current condition
comes with considerable long-term risk/exposure. Based on the existing circumstances, the trustees
present request to sell 85 Hope Lane will be allowed as follows:
Ariana, Rowena and Jeanette shall each deposit $210,000 into escrow for a total of $630,000;
Ariana, Rowena and Jeanette shall expressly waive contingencies and execute an assumption of risk with an
express indemnification agreement, prepared by the Receiver, in favor of the four non-participating
beneficiaries relating to conditions/disclosures for the residence.
The previous listing brokerage shall be entitled to a commission of 2.75%; there is no buyer’s agent with this
transaction; but if the listing agent wishes to assume dual agency, that brokerage may receive an additional
0.75% commission;
The net seller proceeds after commission, transaction and closing costs shall be distributed out of escrow
directly to each of the four non-participating beneficiaries in equal amounts.
To prove liability against the trustees, a non-participating beneficiary will be required to demonstrate that but for
a breach of the fiduciary duty, he or she would have received a higher distributive share from the sale of 85
Hope Lane. Although this Court makes no prediction as to the outcome of such a claim, and allowing the sale
does not sanitize a breach, trustees have a sometimes-conflicting duty to both preserve (§16006) and make
productive (§16007) trust assets. In general, so long as the trustee acts with reasonable care, skill, and
caution under the circumstances (§16040), avoids conflicts of interest (§16004), maintains loyalty (§16002) and
impartiality (§16003), and communicates with beneficiaries (§16060), the trustee may decide when retention or
disposition of trust assets should occur, “even though it includes property in which the trustee is personally
interested” (§16220). In other words, the fact that a trustee has a personal desire to own a trust asset does
not obligate the trustee to make extra effort to unload it. As noted, selling imperfect real property to strangers
carries serious financial and litigation risk that is only warranted when no other option exists.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

9 PR12731 In the Matter of Edward Noerdinger 11/17/2025

Edward Noerdinger

Gabrielle Noerdinger Attorney: Mary McEwen

Petition Hearing

FURTHER - determine succession to primary residence
Petition Hearing

FURTHER - Appoint GAL

11/17/2025 Petition File Tracking 11/21/2025 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 the continued hearing on a probate avoidance by-pass petition to determine instate succession to decedent’s purported primary residence technically described as APN 047-112-013-000. Notice to all of the interested persons appears to be satisfied. See §§ 13151(b) and 13153. The stated legal basis for the putative succession (§13152(a)(4)) is partial intestacy, partial assignment/disclaimer, and partial secondary intestacy – which this Court recently described as cerebral gymnastics without a spotter. Counsel offered to secure the necessary evidence of contemporaneous ownership, alongside a stipulation from all interested parties attesting to the requested distribution plan put before this Court. A supplement has since been filed. While this Court would have preferred to see a simple stipulation signed by the parties attesting to their various percentages in a document that can be recorded, rather than a verification to the supplement setting out those percentages, Rome was not built in a day.

The petition will be granted - eventually. However, the proposed order is not sufficient as it omits the requirement that the parties designate the holding status as tenants in common vs joint tenancy. Given that this was an intestate gift, it is presumed that title should be held as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, but that is often something that the heirs will have discussed and included in the aforementioned stipulation. Oops.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

10 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

Review Hearing - Other

FURTHER -transfer in status

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. The petitions were originally filed in Merced County, even though it appears that a significant part
of the trust administration was taking place here in Tuolumne County. The action has since been transferred here.

The petition taking issue with Veronica’s handling of the sale of the 130-acre property is apparently the subject of civil
litigation in Stanislaus County (CV-24-005236). That seems odd. It is either a issue with trust administration, or it is a civil
dispute outside the trust arena. The petition also accuses Veronica of a breach of trust for having failed in basic math, but
the remedy for that is not nothing; instead, the remedy is to determine if relief is warranted, and if Veronica should be
surcharged the legal fees associated with correcting the error. After all, even if the escrow people messed up, “the trustee is
liable to the beneficiary for an act or omission of an agent employed by the trustee in the administration of the trust that
would be a breach of the trust if committed by the trustee where the trustee delegates to the agent the authority to perform
an act that the trustee is under a duty not to delegate [and] where the trustee does not periodically review the agent's overall
performance.” §16401(b). Distribution amounts are solely within the trustee’s duty to ascertain, not outside escrow people.
Was there a Notice of Proposed Action covering the amounts of the preliminary distribution?

Parties will be invited to address the Court regarding (1) the scope of discovery needed to ready both petitions for resolution,
(2) whether one or both petitions can be resolved using the Probate summary procedures (§§ 1022, 1046, 9620) or if live
witness testimony is needed, and (3) how much administration remains to be completed for this trust to be closed.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

11 PR12681 The Estate of Asterio Navarro 07/29/2025

Celia Navarro Pro Per

Asterio Navarro

OSC Hearing - Contempt/Failure to Comply

As to Celia Navarro FURTHER - ZOOM APPROVED
Letters of Administration

07/29/2025 Petition File Tracking 07/30/2025 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 the continued hearing on a probate petition. Although petitioner is a self-represented individual, the number of errors and omissions with this petition make it difficult to navigate. To start, on Page 1 the petition indicates probate of a will, and a request for appointment as executor, but on Page 2 decedent is said to have died without a will, and a request is made for appointment as administrator. No will is attached. Other concerns include, but are not limited to, the following: there is no accurate proof of publication, it running in the Union Democrat in December but listing a hearing date in October; there is no proffer or waiver of bond; paragraph 8 does not describe how the others are related to decedent; there is no indication whether this is a primary or ancillary probate, and if the former why a by-pass was not considered; there in so non-resident statement; petitioner did not supply the required duties confirmation; there is no notice or proof of service accompanying the petition; and no proposed orders or letters lodged.

Petitioner will be strongly encouraged to retain counsel.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

12 FL12701 Krystal Anderson and Dominick Anderson 04/07/2014

Dominick Anderson Pro Per

Krystal Anderson Pro Per

Victoria Anderson Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Dominick Anderson Pro Per

Krystal Anderson

Motion Hearing - Child Custody/Visitation

FURTHER

05/23/2023 OSC Application File Tracking 12/22/2025 High Density Other Cases CRM45312

See #26

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

13 PR10398 Conservatorship of Brandi Lee Casner 11/10/2008

Suzanne Casner Pro Per

Brandi Lee Casner Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Bobbi Jo Cummings Pro Per

Cassandra Vigardt

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

11/10/2008 Petition File Tracking 09/11/2024 High Density

This is the continued hearing by the conservator to increase her authority over the conservatee and move this limited conservatorship into a general conservatorship. Reports were requested from the court investigator, VMRC and appointed counsel.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

14 PR11200 Conservatorship of Jennifer Harris 06/24/2015

Celeste Harris Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Jennifer Harris

Randy Harris Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER

06/24/2015 Petition File Tracking 12/10/2024 High Density Other Cases CV59601 CV59602

This is the continued review hearing to permit counsel to discuss with the family the potential for graduating the conservatee to a limited conservatorship.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

15 PR9787 Conservatorship of Jonathan Martinez 04/05/2005

Denise Stephens Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Jonathan Martinez

Westamerica Bank Attorney: Randolph Sharon

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

04/10/2024 Accounting: Other File Tracking 04/10/2024 Petition 11/20/2024 From Court-Probate on Calendar

Court is awaiting updated investigator report.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

16 PR11963 Conservatorship of Lawrence Randolph Lail 07/19/2021

Lawrence Randolph Lail

Claudette de Carbonel Attorney: Jeff Bean

Petition Hearing

FURTHER for substituted judgment to create a revocable trust
Review Hearing

FURTHER 4th accounting

07/19/2021 Transfer In File Tracking 07/17/2024 High Density

The Court has received the summary accounting and finds that it is satisfactory for present purposes.

As for the substituted judgment trust instrument, the following adjustments need to be made to the proposed trust: 1. The instrument must provide for successor trustees beyond petitioner to avoid any potential lapses during the conservatee’s lifetime. Selecting Sean, Jason and Ryan to serve as co-trustees is acceptable, as they can decide amongst themselves who would accept the appointment should it come to pass. 2. Unless the assets in the conservatee’s estate are community property subject to Family Code §761 and Probate Code §104.5, the dispositive provisions of the trust customarily mirror those of Probate Code §6401(c)(3), to wit: 1/3 to petitioner and the balance split equally amongst the adult children per stirpes.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

17 PR11138 Conservatorship of Patricia S. Tolhurst 11/19/2014

Thomas F. Kelly Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Patricia Sue Tolhurst

Accounting Hearing

6th

05/03/2022 Accounting: Other File Tracking 04/15/2025 Commissioner Streger

This is to be the hearing on the conservator’s 6 th accounting.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

18 PR11109 Conservatorship of Sinclair E. Darr 09/09/2014

Shawn Darr Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Kimberly Darr Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Sinclair E Darr

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

09/09/2014 Petition File Tracking 11/27/2024 High Density

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed the investigator’s report, intends to find by clear and convincing evidence that the conservatee continues to qualify for a limited conservatorship of the person, that a limited conservatorship remains the least restrictive alternative while protecting the conservatee, and that the acting conservatees are serving the conservatee’s best interests.

Court intends to set an annual review date.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

19 PR12440 Guardianship of Bear Arlington Chagoya Millis, et al 03/28/2024

Debra L. Shaw Pro Per

Bear Arlington Chagoya Millis Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Leo Rod Robert Millis Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Review Hearing

Report re: housing

03/28/2024 Petition File Tracking 03/28/2024 Petition 09/30/2024 High Density

Court appointed investigator to perform home study to ensure that accommodations were appropriate.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

20 PR12741 Guardianship of Billy Koakealani Pfeiffer 01/09/2026

Dustin Farwell Pro Per

Billy Koakealani Pfeiffer Pro Per

Appoint Guardian

Temp

01/09/2026 Petition File Tracking 01/20/2026 LP Labels Needed

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 establish a temporary and permanent
guardianship over the person of a minor child whose custodial parent indicates a need
for “extensive medical treatment and prolonged hospital stays.” A review of the petition
reveals the following potential anomalies:
1. On certain forms, petitioner does not provide a physical address or a
home/work telephone number.
2. The GC-211 consent from Mother bears a suspicious signature for Mother;
3. There is no consent provided from the biological father;
4. There is no GC-210(CA) from petitioner explaining his relationship to the
proposed ward – though he indicates that he is related

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

21 PR10715 Guardianship of Connor Jacob Stacy 05/06/2011

Carole Kohler-Crowe Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Cheryl Kohler-Crowe Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Connor Jacob Stacy

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

05/06/2011 Petition File Tracking 01/03/2025 High Density Other Cases PR10759 FL12717

This is a guardianship involving one minor child (though part of a much larger probate family). Pursuant to Probate Code §1513.2(a), every year the guardian shall complete

and return to the court a status report (GC-251). The court clerk is required to provide a eminder to the guardian, along with a blank GC-251, which did occur herein on 10/15/2025. There is no report on file, which requires an appearance by the guardian.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

22 PR10773 Guardianship of Freddie Adams Harrelson 10/20/2011

Debra L Jorge Pro Per

James L Jorge Pro Per

Freddie Lynn Adams Harrelson

Misti L. Harrelson

Herron A. Adams

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

03/28/2013 Termination of Guardianship File Tracking 01/14/2025 From Court Legal Document 5

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed the GC-251 with attachments, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the guardianship remains necessary/convenient and that the guardians continue to serve the ward’s best interests. The Court will set the annual review hearing, noting that the ward will be aging out in under two years.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

23 PR12486 Guardianship of Hailey Rose Violett 06/12/2024

Tamara Snell Pro Per

Hailey Rose Violett Pro Per

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

FURTHER

06/12/2024 Petition File Tracking 06/12/2024 Petition 09/04/2024 High Density

This is the continued hearing on a de facto oral petition by the guardian herself to terminate her own guardianship and permit the ward to return to the care of her adoptive father – who not long ago went seriously downhill. See CRM75700 and CRM56310. The family has since reunited and relocated to questionable facilities, and a CWS investigation for neglect and animal cruelty remains open. Nevertheless, the court investigator recommends terminating the guardianship, which is echoed by the family. Since the guardian is free to resign with the barest of notice to the court, and no other individual has come forward indicating any desire to assume the role of guardian for this ward, the Court sees little option but to permit the guardianship to lapse. The Court declines to make any finding that termination is in the ward’s best interest, and instead finds that no adult is willing to serve as guardian for this child.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

24 PR12697 Guardianship of Imani Athena Mathiesen 09/05/2025

Lloyd Mathiesen Pro Per

Whitney Mathiesen Pro Per

Imani Athena Mathiesen

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER

09/05/2025 Petition File Tracking 09/08/2025 High Density

This was a “placeholder” petition to establish a guardianship while the parents were incarcerated, but in the interim the parents were released and the prospective ward reportedly resides with mother out of county. If there is no effort to advance this petition, it will be dismissed.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

25 PR10759 Guardianship of Sarah J. Kohler-Crowe 09/13/2011

Carole Kohler-Crowe Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Cheryl Kohler-Crowe Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Sarah Jane Kohler-Crowe

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

FURTHER

12/11/2013 Petition: Other File Tracking 01/03/2025 High Density Other Cases PR10715 FL12716 CV58922

This is a guardianship involving one minor child (though part of a much larger probate family). Pursuant to Probate Code §1513.2(a), every year the guardian shall complete and return to the court a status report (GC-251). The court clerk is required to provide a eminder to the guardian, along with a blank GC-251, which did occur herein on 10/15/2025. There is no report on file, which requires an appearance by the guardian.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

26 PR12690 Guardianship of Victoria Leandra Anderson 08/18/2025

Chelsea Van Atta Pro Per

Victoria Anderson Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER

08/18/2025 Petition File Tracking 08/18/2025 Petition 10/22/2025 Cassandra Vigardt

Awaiting confirmation that minor’s counsel is on board.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

27 PR12607 In re: The Berchtold Living Trust 02/18/2025

Richard Berchtold Attorney: Anthony Johnston

Dannie Berchtold

Petition Hearing

FURTHER update from receiver report

02/18/2025 Petition File Tracking 03/17/2025 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 Court has received and reviewed the Receiver’s report and the Response provided by co-trustee Dannie Berchtold. As is often the case, Dannie’s filings are difficult to follow, but he appears to be suggesting that the $63,275.61 in the PNC trust account was deposited there by defense counsel in the Serpa v. Berchtold case (CV58123) – which (if true) is of no consequence since defense counsel represented both Dannie and Richard in that case. What is curious to this Court is that it appears neither Dannie nor Richard made any effort to actually collect the judgment they secured in that case: Damages: $154,467.97 Fees: $149,925.00 Costs: $ 10,128.31 Total: $314,521.28 (accruing interest since 10/23/2018)

The Receiver’s report indicates that the trust was comfortably funded, but presently holds only six assets: 1. Serpa judgment $ 543,130.86 (approx) 2. APN 082-142-016-000, aka 16589 Sallander Drive $ 180,000.00 (approx) 3. APN 082-142-017-000, aka 16591 Sallander Drive $ 50,000.00 (approx) 4. APN 045-042-026-000, aka 20633 Resort Drive $ 400,000.00 (approx) 5. Promissory note from R. Berchtold $ 44,000.00 6. PNC account ending 1894 $ 503.66 TOTAL $1,217,634.52

Q: Appoint receiver as acting trustee?

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

Department 5 January 30, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

28 PR12735 In the Matter of Avalon Sol Tanori-Salazar 11/26/2025

Haydee Tanori Garcia Pro Per

Avalon Sol Tanori-Salazar

Petition Hearing

establish fact, time, and place of birth

11/26/2025 Petition File Tracking 11/26/2025 Self-Help Center

Petition granted – paperwork to be returned to petitioner.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

29 CV67635 Petition of Sarah Margaret Cadwell 09/12/2025

Sarah Margaret Cadwell Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

FURTHER

09/12/2025 Petition File Tracking 10/01/2025 High Density

Nonconfidential proceeding to change name; proof of publication absent. No appearance at last hearing.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

30 CV67405 Sara Hohman vs. Christopher Romine 07/07/2025

Sara Hohman Pro Per

Christopher Romine Pro Per

Court Trial: Long Cause - TRO/Civil Harassment

Day 2
Est. Duration: 4.00 Hours

07/07/2025 Petition File Tracking 07/09/2025 High Density

Day 2.

Petitioner did not file witness list.

1/27/2026 8:50 am

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

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

31 CV67201 Petition of Elliot James Smithers 04/25/2025

Kiley Smithers Pro Per

Elliot James Smithers

OSC Hearing - Name Change

04/25/2025 Petition File Tracking 09/09/2025 High Density

Nonconfidential petition to change name of minor; parentage confirmed at prior proceeding; both parents consent but requested continuance; publication is complete.

1/27/2026 8:50 am