Jun 28, 2022
A A A

PROBATE TRUSTS CALENDAR – TENTATIVE RULINGS 

Friday June 24, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. VIA ZOOM and IN COURT

Courtroom 23 – Honorable  David Flinn for Honorable Lawrence E. Ornell 

 

PLEASE NOTE:  Masks need not be worn in the courthouse if you are fully vaccinated.

 

Persons are considered vaccinated two weeks after the final dose in a primary series of vaccinations.

 

All unvaccinated persons entering any Sonoma County Superior Courthouse, including any remote jury selection location, shall wear a face covering at all times compliant with all California State Health Orders and CAL/OSHA standards which must completely cover both the nose and mouth. 

 

Court Call is not permitted for this calendar.

If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance by Zoom is necessary unless otherwise indicated. You must notify the probate clerk at (707) 521-6893 if you wish to be heard in response to the tentative ruling. You must inform the clerk concerning your appearance choice: Zoom or in person. Any interested party who wishes to be heard in opposition to a petition must notify all other parties of the intent to appear. Both notifications must be completed no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day immediately preceding the day of the hearing.

 
Unless notification to the probate clerk has been given as provided above, the tentative rulings shall become the rulings of the court at 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing. 

 

TO JOIN PROCEEDINGS VIA ZOOM ONLINE:

 

Use a web browser of your choice and navigate to the following URL/web address on the World Wide Web: https://zoom.us/join

 

When prompted, enter the following information:

 

Meeting ID: 854-4114-2253

Password: 611386

 

TO JOIN PROCEEDINGS VIA ZOOM BY PHONE:


Call 1-669-900-6833 (San Jose) and enter same meeting ID and password as listed above.

 


 

 

Guide for participating in court proceedings via Zoom for Department 23.

 

  • After joining the meeting and checking in with the clerk, please mute your audio when not speaking. This helps keep background noise to a minimum.

 

  • Be mindful of background noise when your microphone is not muted. Avoid activities that could create additional noise, such as shuffling papers.

 

  • Position your camera properly if you choose to use a web camera. Be sure it is in a stable position and focused at eye level, if possible. Make sure everything visible in the frame is appropriate for an appearance in court.

 

  • If a confidential session becomes necessary, it is incumbent on you to ensure you are able to participate from a private location so that unauthorized people cannot overhear or see the proceedings.

 

  • Chat is enabled for the sharing of documents among participants and the court and to allow attorneys to communicate individually with each other or their clients only. No chat messages should be sent privately to the court as it would amount to an unauthorized ex parte communication. Neither should chat messages be sent to all participants unless directed by the court.

 

  • The recording function has been disabled. Remember, the prohibition against recording court proceedings, even remote ones, remains.

 

  • Be patient. Check in will take more time and the experience from those who have tried this before is that proceedings are a little slower generally.

 

***

 

 
  1. In re the Matter of the Edward J. Vieira and Inge Asman Trust, SPR096295
 
Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The hearing on the Petition filed on January 11, 2022, is CONTINUED to 3:00 p.m. on October 27, 2022, in Department 23, for Case Management Conference and possible trial setting. 
 
Inasmuch as this is a contested matter, pursuant to Local Rule 6.2.G.2., the parties are directed to meet and confer and make a good faith attempt to informally resolve the controversy at a face-to-face conference (which is deemed to include video platforms such as Zoom), if possible, otherwise by telephone conference. If the matter has not resolved, the parties shall each file Statements of Issues no later than seven (7) court days before the continued hearing date. (Local Rule 6.2 G.3.) 
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Walter Coughlin Trust, SPR096385
 
Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Petition filed on February 15, 2022, is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the Petition with slight modifications not relating to substance.
 


 
 
  1. In re the Matter of the Jeffrey Kellogg and Lisa L. Kellogg Trust, SPR096505
 
Tentative Ruling:   NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The hearing on the Petition filed on April 4, 2022, is CONTINUED to 9:30 a.m. on August 26, 2022, in Department 23. 
 
The purpose of the continuance is to afford Petitioner time to address the following issues:
 
  • Petitioner must supplement or amend her Petition to include a verification. All pleadings filed under the Probate Code must be verified. (Prob. Code § 1021, Cal Rules of Ct 7.103(b)).  
 
  • Petitioner must comply with service requirements as they pertain to entities in possession of alleged trust assets. It appears from the allegations of the Petition that TD Ameritrade and Fidelity Investments are in possession of the accounts which are the subject of this petition. According to Petitioner’s proofs of service, these financial institutions have not been served with notice or a copy of the Petition. Prob. Code § 851(a), provides that Petitioner must serve any person or entity in possession of the subject property in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the method by which a summons is served.  
 
Ordinarily, service of summons is made within California or in another state by personal service (CCP § 415.10), substituted service (CCP § 415.20), or service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt (CCP § 415.30). Petitioner has not utilized one of these methods with regard to the financial institutions in possession of the subject accounts. Upon doing so, Petition must file proof of service.
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Joseph Mortenson Trust, SPR096514
 
Tentative Ruling: The hearing on the Petition filed on April 5, 2022, is CONTINUED to 3:00 p.m. on August 26, 2022, in Department 23. 
 
The purpose of the continuance is to afford Petitioner time to comply with service requirements as they pertain to entities in possession of the subject property. It appears from the allegations of the Petition, that Exchange Bank and Entergy are in possession of the accounts which are the subject of this petition. According to Petitioner’s proofs of service, neither of these entities have been served with notice or a copy of the Petition. 
 
Prob. Code § 851(a), provides that Petitioner must serve any person or entity in possession of the subject property in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the method by which a summons is served.  Ordinarily, service of summons is made within California or in another state by personal service (CCP § 415.10), substituted service (CCP § 415.20), or service by mail and acknowledgment of receipt (CCP § 415.30). Petitioner has not utilized one of these methods with regard to the financial institutions in possession of the subject accounts.
 
Because notice is otherwise proper and further because the Court is otherwise inclined to approve the petition and grant the relief sought, Petitioner can avoid the continuance by complying with Local Rule 6.2.F.2.b. and appearing for purposes of filing waivers of notice and/or Notices of Acknowledgement executed by authorized representatives of the two financial institutions. In such event, the Court will consider service as code-compliant and approve the Petition.
 
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Allen P. Hansen and Diane P. Hansen Trust, SPR096519
 
Tentative Ruling: The hearing on the Petition filed on April 6, 2022, is CONTINUED to 3:00 p.m. on August 11, 2022, in Department 23. 
 
Petitioner has not filed proof of service establishing that notice has been given to all persons or entities entitled thereto. Additionally, Petitioner must serve notice using the mandatory Judicial Council form DE-115 and file a proof of service. Notice of Hearing is set forth on form DE-120 which does not otherwise contain the information required by Prob. Code § 851(c)(1) and (c)(3). Petitioner must file a code-compliant Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date and file a proof of service establishing code-compliant service was effectuated at least 30 days before the continued hearing date.
 
Lastly, Petitioner must comply with service requirements as they pertain to the persons or entities in possession of the subject property (i.e., the inheritance intended for Settlor Diane Hansen). According to the allegations of the Petition, the trustee of the “Barry Douglas Jordan Revocable Trust” is in possession of the property which comprises the inheritance. Petitioner’s allegations suggest only that the said trustee’s attorney was or may have been served by mail. Prob. Code § 851(a), provides that Petitioner must serve the person or entity in possession of the inheritance in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the method by which a summons is served.  Ordinarily, service of summons is made within California or in another state by personal service (CCP § 415.10), substituted service (CCP § 415.20), or service by mail and acknowledgment of receipt (CCP § 415.30). Petitioner has not utilized one of these methods with regard to the financial institutions in possession of the subject accounts.
 
Petitioner can avoid the continuance by complying with Local Rule 6.2.F.2.b. and appearing for purposes of filing waivers of notice executed by the trustee of the Barry D. Jordan Revocable and all others entitled to notice. In such event, the Court will consider service code-compliant and approve the Petition.
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Steven James Winters Trust, SPR096520
 
Tentative Ruling: The hearing on the Petition filed on April 7, 2022, is CONTINUED to 3:00 p.m. on August 26, 2022, in Department 23. 
 
The purpose of the continuance is to afford Petitioner time to comply with service requirements as they pertain to the financial institution in possession of the subject property. It appears from the allegations of the Petition, that Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, is in possession of the account which is the subject of this petition. According to Petitioner’s proof of service, Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, has not been served with notice or a copy of the Petition. 
 
Prob. Code § 851(a), provides that Petitioner must serve any person or entity in possession of the subject property in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the method by which a summons is served.  Ordinarily, service of summons is made within California or in another state by personal service (CCP § 415.10), substituted service (CCP § 415.20), or service by mail and acknowledgment of receipt (CCP § 415.30). Petitioner has not utilized one of these methods with regard to the financial institutions in possession of the subject accounts.
 
Because notice is otherwise proper and further because the Court is otherwise inclined to approve the petition and grant the relief sought, Petitioner can avoid the continuance by complying with Local Rule 6.2.F.2.b. and appearing for purposes of filing waivers of notice and/or Notices of Acknowledgement executed by authorized representatives of the two financial institutions. In such event, the Court will consider service as code-compliant and approve the Petition.
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Adams Family Trust, SPR096527
 
Tentative Ruling: In the absence of objections or opposition, the Petition filed on April 7, 2022, is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the Petition. 
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Adams Family Irrevocable Trust Agreement No. 2, SPR096528
 
Tentative Ruling: In the absence of objections or opposition, the Amended Petition filed on April 12, 2022, is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the Petition. 
 
 


 
  1. In re the Matter of the Barbara J. Lindquist and Don Lindquist Trust, SPR096535
 
Tentative Ruling: In the absence of objections or opposition, the Petition filed on December 7, 2021, is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the Petition. 
 


 
End of Tentative Rulings

© 2022 Superior Court of Sonoma County