Trusts

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 Access the Probate Examiner Notes:

  • Access the Portal
  • Accept the Terms
  • Select Smart Search, enter your case number, and follow the instructions.

To Join Department 63 “Zoom” Online

To Join Department 63 “Zoom” By Phone:

  • Call: +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) and enter same meeting ID and password as listed above.

Guide for Participating in Court Proceedings via Zoom for Dept 63:

  • 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.

Tentative Rulings

September 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Spencer Family Trust
    24PR00260
    Petition for Confirmation of Permanent Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The petition before the Court requests appointment of a licensed professional fiduciary as successor trustee.  However, it has come to the Court’s attention in connection with another matter that the license of the professional fiduciary expired August 31, 2026.  At least that is the information available on the public website for the licensing agency.  Appearances are required for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to respond to this information, including its accuracy or inaccuracy, and the proposed course of action if accurate.

 

  1. Matter of The Whelan Family Trust
    26PR00163
    Petition to Remove Trustee and for Order Collapsing the Bypass Trust

Tentative Ruling:  APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The petition before the Court seeks two items of relief: 1) An order that all assets allocable to the Bypass Trust are to be held and administered as part of the Survivor’s Trust pursuant to the terms of the Survivor’s Trust; and 2) an order removing respondent as co-trustee and confirming petitioner as the sole Trustee of the Trust.  The Court signed an order on July 17, 2026, granting the first item of relief.  The only remaining issue is whether there is a basis to suspend forthwith, or remove after hearing, respondent co-trustee.  Respondent has proposed appointment of a professional fiduciary as an alternative to petitioner acting as sole trustee.  Petitioner has indicated there are some new concerns that prevent this from being agreeable, though without any further information about the particulars of those concerns the Court is unable to evaluate the reasonableness of this position.  The Court’s view is that given the fact this is a distributive trust, and it appears the last settlor died over two years ago, it is reasonable to conclude that administration is not going well.  It is also likely that the distribution of the trust will be further delayed pending any evidentiary hearing resolving the present dispute.  It would seem appointment of a professional fiduciary would be a reasonable option under these circumstances.  If not, then the Court will likely set the matter for a trial date.  Of the dates listed in the statements of issues, the Court’s calendar would allow the matter to be set on April 30, 2027 for trial to start on May 4, 2027, with a two day time estimate.

As to the question of suspension, as long as the real property assets remain unliquidated, there does not appear to the Court to be any exigency or risk to the trust property justifying suspension.  To the extent there are liquid assets, the Court might have a concern about its jurisdiction over the respondent in the event funds were removed to a foreign county.  The Court could consider requiring a bond to cover the amount of any liquid assets.  But even that seems unnecessary unless the amount of liquid assets exceeds half the value of the real property, such that the remedy of a surcharge could be imposed if necessary at the conclusion of the matter.  The Court does not have information to judge this issue, but mentions it in the event a party wishes to be heard.

 

  1. Matter of The Christopher S. Holm and Bonnie Rodecker-Holm Trust
    26PR00653
    Petition for Order Confirming Assets in Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to December 18, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63. This Petition is brought pursuant to California Probate Code § 850. While the correct Notice of Hearing form was used here, there is no proof of service.  If petitioner has proof of service, they should file it and request to appear for the purpose of presenting it to the Court.  If service is timely, and in the absence of any objection, the Court is inclined to approve the petition.

 

  1. Matter of John H. Hall Trust
    26PR00665
    Petition for Order for Partial Termination of Irrevocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to December 18, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 for the reasons stated below.

There is no proof of service of the petition.  While consents have been filed, they do not include a waiver of notice of the hearing.  Petitioner shall file proof of Code compliant service on all parties entitled to notice at least 15 days before the hearing.

In addition, the petition fails to comply with Local Rule 6.8.A, which requires: “For every petition filed pursuant to Division 9 of the Probate Code, the petition must include a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, including all amendments thereto, and all attachments, schedules, and exhibits.”  Here, the attachments referenced in the trust (Exhibits A, B and C) are not included.  The Court is particularly interested in these attachments as they purport to distinguish between the separate and community property of the settlors.  Whether the real property that is the subject of this petition was community property, or the separate property of the first settlor to die, would be a fact the Court must consider in deciding whether to grant relief.  Also, while the petitioner claims unification would simplify administration after the death of the remaining settlor by unifying title, in fact the survivor’s trust pours over into the residuary trust upon the death of the surviving settlor, so this is already accomplished by the trust.  And as to the claim that a home equity loan or reverse mortgage would be more easily obtained following the requested modification, this seems only theoretical as opposed to an actual justification, given the total assets alleged in the petition.  There presently is not a clear reason why the modification is being requested now.

A verified supplement addressing the above matters, and providing copies of the missing trust exhibits, must be filed and served at least 15 days prior to the next hearing.
 

 

  1. Matter of John A. Burton & Beverly A. Burton Revocable Living Trust
    26PR00667
    Petition for an Order to Confirm Validity of the John A. Burton and Beverly A. Burton Revocable Living Trust, as last Amended November 16, 2016; Confirm Trustee; and Confirm Assets of the Trust

Tentative Ruling:  This matter is CONTINUED to December 18, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 for the reasons stated below.

The assets at issue here are financial accounts held by North Bay Credit Union and Exchange Bank. However, North Bay Credit Union and Exchange Bank, the entities in possession of the accounts, have not been served as required by Probate Code [Prob C] §851(a)(2). The petitioner should note that Prob C §851(a) requires service of the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition in the manner provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §413.10 et seq. (i.e. in the manner of a summons.)  The only proofs of service are by mail which is legally insufficient.  This issue was noted in the Probate Examiner Notes posted July 22, 2026, including the requirement to serve the notice and petition in the manner of a summons.  Matter is continued to allow petitioner another opportunity to accomplish code compliant service.  Any proof of service should be filed at least 15 days prior to the hearing.  Upon reaching the merits, and in the absence of an objection, the Court is then inclined to approve the petition.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***