Tuolumne — Probate Notes for February 20, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_02202026.pdf

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

1 PR12683 Estate of Bernardus Theodorus Voorbij 07/30/2025

Louise Henriette Voorbij-Lijkedijk Pro Per

Review Hearing

Groveland listing/buyer update.

07/30/2025 Petition File Tracking 08/04/2025 High Density

No appearance is necessary. This hearing should have gone off-calendar as the spousal by-pass petition was granted by order of the Court on 11/13/2025.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 PR12732 Estate of David Merrill Johnson 11/24/2025

David Merrill Johnson

Lahna Vonepps Attorney: John Ronge

Letters of Administration

FURTHER

11/24/2025 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.

This is the continued hearing on a petition to secure Letters of Administration and probate the intestate estate of recently-deceased resident with no close family ties. The petitioner is the decedent’s neighbor and close friend. Direct notice to second-degree family, and publication, have been accomplished. Although petitioner’s statement regarding biological family vs. logical family is quite astute, the law here in California is not as advanced. Probate Code §8461 gives appointment priority to blood relatives of any degree, or even the government (public administrator), over the decedent’s best friend and confidante. Even creditors of the decedent rank higher in priority than best friends. That being said, “if persons having priority fail to claim appointment as administrator, the court may appoint any person who claims appointment.” § 8468. Although nobody else with priority has (yet) claimed a right to appointment, one does not “fail to claim” until at least a reasonable amount of time has passed after acquiring actual notice that the individual has died. See, e.g., Probate Code §8001 [30 days for executor of will]. Since the cousins in Oregon may have only learned of the passing recently, this Court intended to give them one month to decide whether they wish to seek appointment given the preference in probate for appointing those with skin in the game (see, e.g., Probate Code §8441(b)). Counsel was to give notice and to provide this Court with a copy of the completed heir search. Nothing has been uploaded to the court file since the last hearing.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

3 PR12671 Estate of Gerald Edward Tufts 07/03/2025

Marian Tufts Attorney: Tamara Polley

Gerald Edward Tufts

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

07/03/2025 Petition File Tracking 07/07/2025 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 was to be the §8800 review hearing, but a final I&A is already on file so this hearing can go off-calendar.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

4 PR12328 Estate of Stephen T. Higgins 10/23/2023

Stephen T. Higgins

Kolby Paige Higgins Attorney: David Song

State of California Franchise Tax
Board REMOVED 7/8/25
Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER / Orders

10/01/2025 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.

No appearance is necessary. Although it is not yet imaged in the court file, this Court recently affixed its signature to the “stipulation for final distribution” filed on 02/09/2026. That should have gone out to the parties by now.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 FL18879 Austin Frederick and Nariah Frederick 12/16/2024

Austin Frederick Attorney: Hal Channell

Nariah Frederick Pro Per

Review Hearing

Dissolution /Judgment - packet First Call
Hal Channell special set. request call 1st

12/16/2024 Complaint File Tracking 09/02/2025 High Density Other Cases FL18856

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.

Although this case is related to FL18856, the parties have not stipulated to this Court handled that
related case.

On 11/26/2024, Mother filed a DVRO in the related action (FL18856). Mother called the police that evening and secured an EPO. The DV-TRO was granted, and included protection for the minor child they share. The DV-140 itself was left blank.

On 12/16/2024, Father filed a petition to dissolve their very brief (22 month) marriage. The child was conceived prior, but born within, wedlock. Father works in pest control, earning $4,160/month. Mother works only part-time at Columbia College as a student teacher.

On 03/13/2025, the Court (JHGC) awarded Father facetime with the minor child every Mon/Fri at 5pm not to exceed 15 min (the child is not yet 2 yrs old). Father failed to appear for the scheduled mediation. That same day, Father pled guilty in CRF76084 to a reduced 273.5.

On 03/28/2025, the Court (JHGC) awarded Father supervised 2-hr blocks of time with the child, up to 3x/week.

On 05/12/2025, the parties appeared in department 2 for a two-day trial on the DVRO and related visitation concerns. Following the trial, Mother was awarded a 5-year DVRO (no contact, stay away) with a complete DV-140, giving her sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child. Father was given supervised visits “as can be arranged.”

Order from 08/06/2025 suggests that custody and visitation were not intended to be permanent orders, but the DV-140 did not include any carve-outs for parenting time.

Attorney Channell was to prepare dissolution for bifurcation and financial entanglements. A review of the file does not reveal any filings for this Court’s early review.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

6 FL9963 Teresa Houston vs. Matthew C. Nugent 2000000766054 06/08/2010

Teresa Houston

Matthew C Nugent

Dept. of Child Support Services Attorney: Dept. of Child
Support Services
Review Hearing - Child Support

ARREARS - Special Set, due to fathers schedule

06/08/2010 OSC Application File Tracking 08/13/2024 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.

Review hearing awaiting timeshare resolution from Dept 2 …

On 04/07/2022, Mother apparently stipulated to giving Father sole physical custody with no set visitation schedule.

On 09/29/2023, the court entered an order obligating Mother to pay Father $635/month to support one teenage son.

On 05/16/2025, Mother filed a motion in Dept. 2 an RFO seeking a parenting allocation and an adjustment to the support obligation.

Father: Mechanic, Sonora Ford $40 hr Mother: Unknown employment Father alleges $25k in arrears and a need to impute Arrears liquidation reset to 25%

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

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

Jimmie Nixon Attorney: Michael Germain

Review Hearing

FURTHER - Anoint Subtrust

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.

This is the follow-up hearing to the stipulated agreement regarding the
establishment of a sub-trust. The settlor directed that the assets of the trust

be utilized “as a museum for public viewing or as private assets for the private viewing of her family, for profit or not” in the trustee’s sole discretion. The assets could be invested, or sold, in the sole discretion of the trustee. Although the settlor did not clearly identify beneficiaries of the Ranch Sub-trust, she did provide that if the sub-trust was “unsustainable” that the assets could be sold and the proceeds distributed 1/3 to Alvin, 1/3 to David, and 1/3 to the grandchildren. The Family Trust did not instruct who should be the beneficiaries of the Ranch Sub-Trust, or how the trust res would be distributed (although Art. II.D. could be read as adopting intestacy for that sub-trust). Although the settlor has sufficiently described a reasonably ascertainable group of individuals intended to benefit from the Ranch Sub-Trust (see §15205 and Reagh v. Kelley (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1088), if the sub-trust fails, the assets therein simply get distributed via the amended Article II (which appears to have a very similar intended distribution).

Having decided on a version of the trust, now is the time for any interested party to object to the proposal.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

8 FL18741 In Re: Iyla Hyder 09/17/2024

Imera N. Mathis Pro Per

Sean Hyder

Iyla Hyder

Imera N. Mathis Pro Per

Sean Hyder

Christopher Hyder

Imera N. Mathis Pro Per

Sean Hyder Pro Per

Athena Hernandez Pro Per

Review Hearing - Visitation

07/18/2025 Request for Order File Tracking 07/09/2025 High Density Other Cases FL18745

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.

On 08/19/2024, the juvenile dependency court issued an exit order granting Father sole legal and sole physical over both young children. Mother was granted a mere 1 hr of supervised visits each month. There was a related criminal case CRF71887, Father committing DV on Mother with CPO favoring Mother. The children came into contact with the department in part because Mother was found to have abused drugs and been involved in other unstable relationships.

On 09/17/2024, Mother filed a petition to establish parental rights with lengthy manifesto type statements.

On 10/14/2024, Mother filed an RFO further seeking custody and parenting time in a similar manifesto style. This was set for hearing on 12/13/24 in Dept 2, and alter consolidated with FL18745.

On 07/21/2025, Mother filed new RFO seeking equal parenting time and custody. Father is open to increasing Mother’s time but still with supervision as Father remains concerned that Mother’s mental health is fragile.

On 10/31/2025, parties agreed on supervisor and submitted FL-341 giving Father sole custody and Mother supervised visits on Sundays (see FL-341(A)). A few weeks later Father filed an RFO seeking to clarify that supervisor is only available on Weds/Sat and that visits should adjust. Father also wants Mother to secure her own car seats. However, supervisor typically handles transportation of children, not the party being supervised.

At prior hearings, the parties agreed that paternal grandmother would supervise, but that has since come into question as she does not want to. Maternal grandmother agreed to provide reports. Mother’s visitation was increased to Sun 1pm – 5pm.

Since that time the MGM has filed a petition for grandparent visitation (set for hearing March 3) but her ordered supervision report (due 02/13/2026) is now late. PGM has now filed FL-324(NP) so she is cleared for take-off.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

9 PR12564 The Matter of The William Rebero and Madiline L. Rebero 1991 Trust 12/19/2024

Margaret Johnson Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Diane Rock Attorney: Anthony Johnston

Petition Hearing - Other

FURTHER status review / trial setting

12/19/2024 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.

This is a petition for a trust accounting, to contest the validity of a trust restatement, and to confirm pre-existing iterations of the subject trust from 2011 and 2014. The trustee has responded and objected. Since then, the parties have apparently been working toward a resolution. Parties to advise whether this matter can be resolved using the summary dispute resolution procedures (§§ 1022, 1046, 9620) with ordinary briefing (CCP §§ 437c, 1010, 1005(b), 1005.5, and CRC 3.1306). See Dunlap v. Mayer (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 419, 426. Parties to advise anticipated scope/duration of discovery and when the matter will be ready for trial. Parties have advised that settlement appears to be in the works.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

10 PR12114 Conservatorship of Julio C Acosta, Jr 05/11/2022

Julio C Acosta Pro Per

Julio C Acosta Pro Per

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER - report filed?

05/11/2022 Petition File Tracking 02/11/2025 High Density

This is the annual review of the general conservatorship over the person and estate. Previous VMRC reports have been requested to determine the conservatee’s qualifications for a promotion to a limited conservatorship, but the court file does not reflect receipt of any such report. Court will await updated investigator report.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

11 PR11888 Guardianship of Chloe Rose Mckelvey 12/31/2020

Nancy Scott Pro Per

Chloe Rose Mckelvey Pro Per

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

12/31/2020 Petition File Tracking 03/06/2025 High Density

This is the required annual review of a guardianship, but the guardians have yet to file the required GC-251.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

12 CV67996 Petition of AB 01/14/2026

Pro Per

OSC Hearing -

01/14/2026 Petition File Tracking 01/28/2026 High Density

Confidential proceeding. Scope unclear.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

13 CVL66886 Synchrony Bank vs. Raul Arauza 01/14/2025

Synchrony Bank Attorney: Adam Kidd

Raul Arauza

Pre-Trial Conference

Court Trial: Short Cause - Collections Case CRC 3.740

Spanish Interpreter Needed.
Est. Duration: 4.00 Hours

01/14/2025 Complaint File Tracking 08/13/2025 High Density

Bench trial re: Collection Unpaid credit card Amount in controversy: $5,745.16 + court costs Answer: defendant has made monthly payments of $133.00 on the account from April of 2023 through October of 2024 and only stopped when the lawsuit was filed (leaving the current amount owed). Otherwise, defendant does not dispute using the credit card, incurring the gross debt, and owing whatever balance reasonably remains. Defendant requests interpreter but filed answer in English providing fluent explanation for the impasse.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm

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

Department 5 February 20, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

14 CV67969 Petition of JW 01/06/2026

Pro Per

OSC Hearing -

01/06/2026 Petition File Tracking 01/23/2026 LP Labels Needed

Confidential proceeding.

2/15/2026 4:41 pm