Tuolumne — Probate Notes for March 27, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_03272026.pdf

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

1 PR12308 Estate of Arturo Madrid, Jr 07/21/2023

Alfred Telly Madrid Attorney: Alan Eighmey

Arturo Madrid

Petition Hearing

for Termination of Proceedings and Discharge

07/21/2023 Petition File Tracking 02/19/2025 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.

The Court, having received and reviewed the §12251 petition, intends to find by sufficient evidence that no property subject to administration still remains in decedent’s estate, that petitioner is entitled to a full release/discharge, and that the bond previously posted should be exonerated. Absent objection from the interested parties, the petition will be granted, and the proposed order signed/entered.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 PR12439 Estate of Gerald Duane Campbell 03/27/2024

Jeffrey Campbell Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Gerald Duane Campbell

Vickie L Campbell Pro Per

Review Hearing

If needed.

03/27/2024 Petition File Tracking 01/30/2025 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 a review hearing to confirm that all interested parties have received a check from Jeff in the amount of $110,000 (as was the agreement). The previous proposed order was rejected because that language was imprecise.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

3 PR12750 Estate of Gwendolyn Marie Barendregt 01/29/2026

David Lake Attorney: Kelsey Kern

Gwendolyn Marie Barendregt

Probate Will/Issue Letters

01/29/2026 Petition File Tracking 02/24/2026 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.

Related to PR11522.

No appearance is necessary.

This is the initial hearing on a petition to probate decedent’s will and issue Letters Testamentary to the nominated executor. The copy of the will is sufficiently self-authenticated to warrant admission of the original to probate. Notice via publication is adequate even though it fails to include every alias associated with decedent. See §8122. Notice to interested parties is presumptively satisfied given the Herculean list amassed by counsel. See §§ 1208, 8110; CRC 7.51; TCSC Local Rule 5.13.0.

Court intends to grant the petition, issue the Letters, and set §§ 8800/12200 review dates.

Of note, this Court is not admitting to probate any instrument relating to Paul Barendregt which is referenced in Art. VI of decedent’s will, and no such request has been made. To the extent decedent’s putative power of appointment has not yet been made effective, it does appear that such power would need to be exercised within PR11522 by decedent’s successor in interest unless the assets are to be treated as a non-probate assignment subject to possible IRS treatment. Petitioner will need to clarify if said assets are included in decedent’s I&A.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

4 PR12743 Estate of Joanne D Knowles 01/14/2026

Laurel Rimon Attorney: Tamara Polley

Joanne D Knowles

Probate Will/Issue Letters

FURTHER

01/14/2026 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 is the continued hearing on a petition to admit decedent’s recently-found will to probate, and to appoint her nominee to serve as executor thereof. The will is sufficiently self-authenticated to warrant admission of the original to probate. Notice via publication is satisfactory. Notice to interested parties includes Laurel, Greg, Richard, Charles, and UC Davis. This is technically complaint (see §§ 1208, 8110; CRC 7.51; TCSC Local Rule 5.13.0), although notice to David would avoid any potential adverse claim down the road.

Court intends to grant the petition, issue the Letters, and set §§ 8800/12200 review dates.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 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
Petition Hearing

Final Distribution

02/05/2026 Final Distribution 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.

Before the Court this day is the petition to approve the final distribution plan, including the amounts sought for statutory fees and reimbursement. The Court notes the following concerns:

First, the petition indicates that there were no creditor claims. See Para 10. However, between 12/26/2024 and 01/13/2025 this Court received three creditor claims. There is no mention of how these were resolved.

Second, petitioner and counsel have secured assignments based on the presumed representation that decedent’s surviving spouse is only entitled to 1/3 of decedent’s estate, but that assumes everything in decedent’s probate estate is separate property. There is no actual proof of that. As such, for her assignment to be valid, she must acknowledge that her share could be as high as 50%. See Probate Code §§ 6401(a) and 11604(b).

Third, the proposed distribution of “73.33%” to Alex and “33.33%” to both of Taylor and Zakary is not mathematically possible. Moreover, unless Kristen, Max and Brendon are willing to take the chance of an IRS event as a result of a $22,000 gift, their interest is better treated as a disclaimer – giving the brothers equal shares in the residence. Petitioner would not receive the statutory fee plus $66,000 in gifts without a clear explanation from the gift-givers. {This Court would be willing to give Alex 50% and each brother 25%.}

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

6 PR12714 In Re: The Hauschildt 1994 Revocable Trust 10/09/2025

Jimmie Nixon Attorney: Michael Germain

Review Hearing

Entry of Judgment

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 necessary. Judgment already entered March 3.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

7 PR12755 In the Matter of Raymond Eric Dixon 02/11/2026

Eric A Dixon Attorney: Matthew Toth

Raymond Eric Dixon

Determine Succ to Real Property

02/11/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/09/2026 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 by-pass petition to determine intestate succession to decedent’s primary residence. Petitioner purports to be the successor in interest by virtue of §6402(a), in that he is the sole natural heir. There are two items needing clarification.

First, a by-pass petition must state “the facts upon which the petitioner bases the allegation that the described real property was the decedent's primary residence.” See §13152(a)(3). There is nothing in the petition connecting 22000 Elizabeth Lane to the decedent, let alone as his primary residence. Although one’s “primary residence” can differ from one’s last residence (ie, assisted living, hospice), there must still be some permanency or continuing expectation of periodic return associated with the former. See, e.g., CCP §704.995; Govt. Code §244; Veh. Code §516; Estate of Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870, 882-883; Marriage of Amezquita & Archuleta (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1419-1420; Kibbee v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 53, 61-62; DeMiglio v. Mashore (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268.

Second, a trial court may grant a by-pass petition only if it determines “the property described in the order is property of the decedent.” See §13154(b)(4). There is nothing in the petition demonstrating decedent’s ownership of 22000 Elizabeth Lane, at any time and certainly not at this time when orders are being sought. A current preliminary title report, property tax bill, or confirmation from accessor’s office is always needed to assure that no cloud or slander of title is being created by the proposed order of transfer.

Court is pleased to continue the hearing to allow petitioner the additional time needed to present the missing information.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

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

Elizabeth Nunes Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Steven Thors Pro Per

Petition Hearing

FURTHER - ascertaining beneficiaries / Trial Setting on Petition

11/18/2025 Petition 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.

Pleadings: Q: Original petition on file(§1022); appears that petitioner served, but did not file, a First Amended Petition; Q: Responsive pleading to FAP is on file (§1043) Q: Since this is a contested matter, the pleadings will not be received as evidence except that verified statements may be used as impeachment (see Probate Code §1022 and Evidence Code §§ 1220-1221)

Discovery: Q: Parties are now free to commence with discovery as set forth under the Civil Discovery Act (see §§ 1000, 17201.1). What is the estimated amount of discovery needed by both sides?

Hearing: Q: Court shall hear the matter, consider the evidence, rule on objections, and make orders (§§ 1046, 17202, 17209). Will the parties require live witness testimony or can the dispute be resolved via summary determination per CCP §437c and Probate Code §9620?

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

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

Sarah J Buurkarl Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Tracy Valett

Petition Hearing

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 and CRM74167 and CRM74526 (120 days starting Apr 5) Handled CHRO by neighbor.

This is the initial 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. There is no proof of service upon said boyfriend.

The main asset 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.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

10 FL15007 Ryan Royce and Erika Royce 08/16/2017

Ryan Royce Pro Per

Erika Royce Attorney:Pro Per Jessie Castellano

Review Hearing - Visitation

Step Up for Petitioner?

05/15/2018 OSC Application File Tracking 07/18/2025 Archives-File Imaged

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.

Update on visits.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

11 PR11898 Guardianship of Mia Smith 01/25/2021

Sandra Thompson Pro Per

Mia Smith Pro Per

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

01/25/2021 Petition File Tracking 04/12/2024 High Density

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed the GC-251 with attachments, intends to finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the guardianship remains necessary and that the guardian continues to serve the ward’s best interests. Court to set annual review date.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

12 PR12761 Guardianship of Nevaeh Clemens 02/24/2026

Sidney Clemens Pro Per

Nevaeh Clemens

Stephen Clemens Pro Per

Appoint Guardian - Person

FURTHER - temp

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

This is the continued hearing on a petition by the paternal uncle and aunt to establish a guardianship over a child recently residing locally, but mostly with her biological mother in Butte County, CA. Ward is of the age for being heard, and would be attending high school, but bio mom objects to both venue and guardianship. Issues arose after bio mom and ward got into heated argument involving some physicality.

Per Probate Code §2201, “the proper county for the commencement of a guardianship is the county in which the proposed ward resides [or] such other county as may be in the best interests of the proposed ward.”

Per Family Code §3041: “Before making an order granting custody to a person other than a parent, over the objection of a parent, the court shall make a finding that granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and that granting custody to the nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child. Detriment to the child includes the harm of removal from a stable placement of a child with a person who has assumed, on a day-to-day basis, the role of the child's parent. A finding that parental custody would be detrimental to the child shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.”

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

13 FL5534 Kim Sutton and Curt Sutton 06/22/2005

Kim Sutton Pro Per

Curt Sutton Pro Per

Trial Setting

06/22/2005 Petition File Tracking 03/18/2025 High Density

Needed calendar space for other matter so have to reset this case. Issue is limited to Mother’s request to increase spousal support after many years.

On 07/10/2025, Wife filed motion to increase spousal support from $100/month effective 01/13/2006 to $1,000/month effective immediately because she is sleeping on her aunt’s couch. Wife claims that despite “divorce” they never actually separated and remained as a unit until 2024. Husband concedes that they dated for a decade post-divorce and in that time he increased his earning ability significantly.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

14 CV68013 Petition of Charles Alkema 01/21/2026

Charles Alkema Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

01/21/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/10/2026 High Density

“Nonconfidential” name change of minor; however will clear courtroom

§1278.5: no consent from bio parents

§1277(f): “If a guardian files a petition to change the name of the guardian's minor ward pursuant to Section 1276, the guardian shall provide notice of the hearing to any living parent of the minor by personal service at least 30 days before the hearing. If either or both parents are deceased or cannot be located, the guardian shall give notice to the child's grandparents.”

§1276(f): “If the petition is signed by a guardian, the petition shall specify relevant information regarding the guardianship, the likelihood that the child will remain under the guardian's care until the child reaches the age of majority, and information suggesting that the child will not likely be returned to the custody of the child's parents.”

§1277(c): “If the petition is filed for a minor or nonminor dependent who is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the action for a change of name is exempt from the requirement for publication of the order to show cause under subdivision (a).”

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

15 CV68032 Petition of Stephanie Anne Horn 01/23/2026

Stephanie Anne Horn Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

01/23/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/10/2026 High Density

Nonconfidential name change.

No proof of publication. Request unclear.

3/24/2026 11:41 am

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

Department 5 March 27, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

16 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

Court Trial: Long Cause

Day 2 HALF DAY

12/01/2023 Petition File Tracking 09/26/2024 High Density

Trial Day 2

3/24/2026 11:41 am