Hi; My goal is to provide you with great service - if you have any questions during our chat, please ask! I'll do my best to ensure your satisfaction!
I have reviewed your questions and will be able to assist you. I am still waiting for some documents to download so it may take a moment. In the meantime, my sympathies for your loss.
The date of the hearing would be for the continued hearing date, as this provides notice to the relevant parties.
As for service and notice of the amendment, that all needs to be done a second time. The point of the notice is to notify interested people of the proceeding - including the date and time.
CCP 471.50 addresses this. I wish I could link you but the site has taken almost 10 minutes to download so it must be having some problems. However, I consulted my hard book and this is the proper code.
If the clerk has not file stamped the document, you can simply replace the document and will not need an amendment. If it was stamped (usually on the right hand corner) then it would need an amendment.
You mention you discussed this with the probate examiner. Most courts in California have self-help services, where a clerk and/or attorney will assist with document preparation. Did you inquire as to this service? Also, the Probate for Dummies book I believe is not California specific.
Fresno court generally has very good self help guides - more detailed than the other counties.
So notice must be served again, but publishing in a newspaper is not required a second time. Is this correct?
Let me see if I can find authority on that. But personally my experience has always been to publish twice, because from a practical view point, an interested party could say they did not have notice of the actual hearing (since the date was moved). So for example, a law firm, as a matter of policy, would just republish.
I have done various word searches of the entire CCP of California which governs these types of procedural issues, and this is not specifically addressed. So it is always wise to err on the side of caution. Since the purpose of the publication is to give notice, since the hearing has been moved up, it would be the cautionary approach (otherwise it opens doors for disputes later down the line).
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).