Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: BC6543338, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC6543338    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 2/15/24

Case #BC654338

MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Petition filed on 7/27/23.

MINOR: Jesus Hector Chinchillas Dominguez, Jr.

GAL: Dinorah Chinchillas (aunt)

DEFENDANT: Dylan Rutherford

SUMMARY OF ACTION: Minor’s father was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused by a drunk driver.  Minor did not receive any treatment and the petition indicates that he has completely recovered. 

SETTLEMENT: $30,000 to be paid by Defendant Dylan Rutherford.

ATTORNEY FEES: $0

COSTS: $15,563.33

AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO MINOR: $14,436.67

RULING:   

This action arises out of the death of the minor’s father in a motor vehicle accident caused by a drunk driver.  Minor did not receive any treatment and the petition indicates that he has completely recovered.

Defendant Dylan Rutherford has agreed to pay $30,000 in settlement.  Costs of $15,563.33 will be deducted from the settlement amount.  No attorney fees will be deducted.  The minor is to be paid $14,436.67. 

On 8/15/23, the hearing on the petition to confirm minor’s compromise was continued to 2/15/24 due to issues with service and how the remaining settlement funds are to be disposed. 

Specifically, the Court stated:

“The petition was filed on 7/27/23, only 12 court days before the 8/14/23 hearing date.  The  proof of service attached to the petition indicates that the petition was only electronically served on attorney Edward E. Ward, Jr., counsel for Defendants Dylan Rutherford, Logan MacPherson and Alisha MacPherson.  However, no email address for attorney Ward appears in eCourt.  Additionally, it is not clear why the petition was not served on the State of California Victim Compensation Board who has appeared in the action.    

Additionally, the following issue need[s] to be addressed:  

How the remaining settlement funds are to be disposed is unclear.  No.18.b(1) indicates that there is not a guardianship of the estate of the minor and requests the appointment of one so that the settlement funds may be delivered to the person appointed.  (See also proposed Order, No.8.b(2)).  No.20 “Additional orders” in the petition states:

‘As an alternative to giving the money to the guardian ad litem, Petitioner requests that the court orders the money to be deposited in a trust account in the state of Arizona instead of the state of California since the petitioner and the claimant live in Mexico and it would be much more costly and time-consuming for the petitioner to drive to California to open a bank account. The minor does not have a US visa and cannot travel to the United States to open a bank account if his presence is required by the bank.’   

However, the above ‘additional orders’ are not included in the proposed Order.  (See proposed Order, No.13). 

The appointment of a guardian of the estate of the minor must be done in probate court.  Once a guardian of the estate of the minor is appointed, this Court can proceed with a hearing on instant petition allowing guardian of the estate to weigh in on the “additional order” requested in number 20.  Petitioner presents no authority which allows this Court to impose orders on a guardian of the estate once the money is paid to that individual per No.18(b)(1).”

(See 8/15/23 Minute Order).

Nothing has been filed since the 8/15/23 hearing.

If counsel represents that steps are being taken to address the issues set forth in the Court’s 8/15/23 Minute Order, the matter will be continued.  If not, the petition will be denied.