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 12 “Zoom” Online

To Join Department 12 “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 12:

  • 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

July 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Spencer Family Trust

24PR00260

Petition for Allowance of Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED.

  1. Matter of The Rural Adventure Private Trust Dated October 30, 2020 Trust

24PR00887

Amended Petition for Instructions Determining Construction of Trust, Validity of Trust Provisions, Approving Modification, Ascertaining Beneficiaries, and Confirming Trustee and Trust Property

Tentative Ruling:   This matter has twice been continued since the Court granted the motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel in February 2026.  After the petitioner’s counsel was disqualified, new counsel for the petitioner substituted into the action on her behalf in May of 2026. Just four days after the substitution of counsel was filed, a hearing occurred on May 15, 2026. At that hearing, the Court continued the matter to allow new counsel to become acquainted with the case and to allow the parties to meet and confer and file statements of issues. Despite the effort of the respondent to meet and confer, no meet and confer has occurred, and the petitioner has not filed a statement of issues or provided any update regarding prosecution of this matter.  The case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to local rule 6.2(C)(2)(c).

  1. Matter of The Urban Orchards Private Trust Dated October 30, 2020 Trust

24PR00888

Amended Petition for Instructions Determining Construction of Trust, Validity of Trust Provisions, Approving Modification, Ascertaining Beneficiaries, and Confirming Trustee and Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: This matter has twice been continued since the Court granted the motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel in February 2026.  After the petitioner’s counsel was disqualified, new counsel for the petitioner substituted into the action on her behalf in May of 2026. Just four days after the substitution of counsel was filed, a hearing occurred on May 15, 2026. At that hearing, the Court continued the matter to allow new counsel to become acquainted with the case and to allow the parties to meet and confer and file statements of issues. Despite the effort of the respondent to meet and confer, no meet and confer has occurred, and the petitioner has not filed a statement of issues or provided any update regarding prosecution of this matter.  The case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to local rule 6.2(C)(2)(c).

  1. Matter of Salada Living Trust

24PR00973

Petition for Removal of Trustee, Compelling Accounting, and Other Relief

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to November 13, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to cure the notice defects noted below, and for the other reasons noted below.

The notice of hearing on a pleading filed in a proceeding under the Probate Code must state the complete title of the pleading to which the notice relates. California Rules of Court Rule 7.50. The notice of hearing filed April 1, 2026 does not state the complete title of the pleading to which the notice relates. Thus, notice is defective to any person notified by use of said notice of hearing.

Melchor V. Salada, the respondent and trustee, is represented by counsel of record in this proceeding, namely, Daniel J. Wilson, Esq. Per the proof of service of the First Amended Petion, filed July 9, 2026, Melchor Salada was served care of counsel only, in violation of California Rule of Court Rule 7.5(b) and California Probate Code §1214.

The recently filed statements of issues indicate the parties have agreed to mediation, and the matter will go to mediation August 10, 2026. Discovery is also ongoing and more time is needed to work on discovery before setting a trial date. Also, Melchor Salada is not properly served and has not yet opposed the first amended petition. It is also unclear what (if any) action Robin C. Bevier, Esq. will take with respect to the First Amended Petition. Therefore, the pleadings are not set, and the Court will not set trial at this time.  The Court notes it has no trial availability remaining in 2026 in any event.

  1. Matter of The Delia Ybarra Living Trust

25PR01385

Petition to Remove Trustee Daniel Ybarra; Appoint Successor Trustee Without Bond; and Compel Accounting

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED to discuss obtaining verification for the petitioner’s Case Management Statement (CMS) filed July 16, 2026, to discuss the appropriate successor trustee, and to discuss the issue of bond. The Court’s concerns related to these issues are discussed below. If the petitioner can file a verification for the CMS and file a declination to serve from Bank of the West, it may help to avoid a continuance.

Per the petitioner’s CMS, the respondent-trustee delivered an informal hand-written accounting along with some (but not all) relevant account statements/paperwork. The petitioner asserts that the records reflect that the trustee commingled trust assets with his personal assets, and that he issued himself checks totaling $195,000.00 using trust funds. The petitioner also asserts the trustee mismanaged the mortgage over trust real property such that he incurred unnecessary interest expense. Given these new uncontested allegations the Court is inclined to remove the trustee. However, the CMS is not verified, so the CMS does not presently amount to competent evidence. See Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 609-612.

Further, regarding appointment of a successor, the Court must first resort to the provisions of the trust to determine the appropriate successor trustee. California Probate Code (Prob C) §15660(b). In this case, as the petitioner indicates he declines to serve, the appropriate trustee is Bank of the West Trust Department. Trust, 5.4. If Bank of the West declines to serve, the Court is inclined to appoint the nominee, Jack Ybarra, assuming he accepts the trust, but will require bond. The trust waives bond only for those people named as trustee in the trust. Trust, 5.6. The proposed successor trustee, Jack Ybarra, is not named in the trust. Therefore, if Jack Ybarra is appointed, bond will be required pursuant to Prob C §15602(a)(3). The Court understands that the primary trust asset is a $2.4 million dollar home in San Jose, and there may be little to no cash assets. So, the Court will require a $2.4 million dollar bond if Jack Ybarra is appointed.

If petitioner cannot obtain a declination to serve from Bank of the West prior to the hearing, the matter will likely need to be continued for that purpose.

  1. Matter of Lorraine D. Rollins Trust Agreement and First Restatement of the Frederick A. Rollins and Lorraine D. Rollins Revocable Trust

26PR00380

Verified Petition of Michael Gosselin Pursuant to Probate Code §§17200 and 15642 to: (1) Compel Complete Accounting; (2) Surcharge Trustee Sean Michael Gosselin for Breach of Trust; (3) Remove Trustee and Appoint Successor Trustee; (4) Impose Equitable Tracing and Constructive Trust; (5) Obtain Instructions Regarding Advances to Beneficiary; (6) Financial Elder Abuse (Welfare and Institutions Code §15600 et seq.); (7) Forfeiture of Benefits Under Probate Code §259; (8) Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: The matter is CONTINUED to November 13, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 for the reasons set forth below.

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. Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8(A). The petitioner failed to comply with this requirement. The Lorraine D. Rollins Trust Agreement is attached to the trustee’s response, so the Court is able to refer to that trust. However, the Frederick A. Rollins and Lorraine D. Rollins Revocable Trust is not provided in any of the papers. The petitioner is directed to file and serve a verified supplement at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing that includes the Frederick A. Rollins and Lorraine D. Rollins Revocable Trust.

The petition does not state the names and addresses of the people entitled to notice, as required by California Probate Code §17201. Under Article V Section 3(c) of The Lorraine D. Rollins Trust Agreement, the settlor’s grandchildren are the beneficiaries, but the grandchildren are not defined in the trust. Without the California Probate Code §17201 allegation, the Court has no basis to determine that all necessary people have been served. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file and serve, at least seven (7) court days before the continued hearing, a list of the names and addresses of the people entitled to notice, as required by California Probate Code §17201.

As for the temporary orders requested by the petitioner, they are all DENIED without prejudice at this time. The Court does not find that suspension is warranted pursuant to Prob C §15642(e). The facts that would support suspension are disputed, and the response raises credible disputes as to the facts that would support suspension. As for the property taxes, the respondent indicates that they have been paid. If the petitioner wishes to obtain a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring payment of the property taxes, this must be raised by a motion for a preliminary injunction. The same can be said for the request to enjoin any transfer of trust funds.

As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2(F)(2) and file statements of issues in compliance with local rule 6.2(F)(3) at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing.

  1. Matter of Panfiglio Family Trust

26PR00388

Petition for Transfer of Trust Property; for Double Damages Under Probate Code §859

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED in part and CONTINUED in part, as set forth below.

As for the request for damages pursuant to California Probate Code (Prob C) §859, the petition is DENIED. Prob C §859 applies when property belonging to a conservatee, a minor, an elder, a dependent adult, a trust, or the estate of a decedent, or where a person has taken, concealed, or disposed of the property by the use of undue influence in bad faith or through the commission of elder or dependent adult financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The petition does not contain sufficient allegations to show that the petitioner qualifies for relief pursuant to Prob C §859.

As for the balance of the issues raised by the petition, the hearing is CONTINUED to October 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63. 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. Local Rule 6.8.A. The petitioner is directed to file and serve, at least ten (10) court days in advance of the continued hearing, a verified supplement containing a complete copy of the trust (including all amendments) applicable to this petition.

Also, the petition, at paragraph 35, indicates that an accurate list of all the names and addresses of all persons entitled to notice is attached to the petition. The service list appears at the last page of the petition, and lists three people. On June 22, 2026, the petitioner filed a proof of service showing service to nine people, some of whom are listed as the settlors’ grandchildren. The petitioner is directed to include in the aforementioned verified supplement and accurate and complete list of the people entitled to notice, as required by California Probate Code §17201.

As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2(F)(2) and file statements of issues in compliance with local rule 6.2(F)(3) at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing. 

  1. Matter of Durie Family Trust

26PR00417

Petition for Order Determining Property to be Titled in Name of Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to November 13, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to address the Court’s concerns, as stated below.

The assets at issue here are four (4) financial accounts. Two of the accounts are Morgan Stanley accounts. Morgan Stanley is not served as required by California Probate Code (Prob C) §851(a)(2). Two of the accounts are Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) 403(b) retirement accounts. TIAA is not served as required by 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 Court’s other concern relates to whether the accounts at issue here can be deemed trust assets if they are Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) accounts. ERISA generally prohibits the assignment of retirement plan benefits. In re Marriage of DeBenedetti & Ensberg (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1043, review denied (July 30, 2025). The petition does not specifically indicate whether the accounts are subject to ERISA. The account statements for the TIAA accounts say these are “403(b)” accounts, and these are the Court’s primary concern. As for the two Morgan Stanley accounts, these do not appear to be ERISA accounts, but as the matter must be continued for notice defects, the Court asks counsel to confirm whether the Morgan Stanley accounts are subject to any restraints on alienation/otherwise cannot be trust assets as a matter of law. The petitioner should address this issue by verified supplement, to be served and filed at least ten (10) court days prior to the continued hearing.

The Court notes that, if the assets at issue are ERISA accounts, the Court is instead inclined to treat this as a petition to order the institution to pay the proceeds of the accounts to the trustee, as if the trust had been properly named a pay on death beneficiary. Once the notice issue is cured, the Court is not averse to making an order that the trust is in effect the beneficiary of the accounts, particularly in the absence of any opposition, or difference between heirs of the trust and heirs of a probate estate. If the petitioner decides to proceed in this manner, they must so indicate via the aforementioned verified supplement and provide legal authority for this approach, even if it is only the equitable power of the Court. Said supplement shall be served and filed at least 10 days prior to the continued hearing. The petitioner must also lodge an updated proposed order stating that the Court is not declaring the assets to have been placed in trust in the past (as it would with a Prob C §850 Petition) but only directing the payment of funds now.

Finally, the Court directs the counsel’s attention to California Rule of Court rule 1.201(a), which states in part: “If financial account numbers are required in a pleading or other paper filed in the public file, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used.” Any future filings should comply with this rule.

  1. Matter of Danny Rivera Trust

SPR097886

Petition of Monica Rivera for Orders to: (1) Remove Trustee Gloria Kosbie; (2) Suspend Trustee’s Powers Pending Appointment; (3) Appoint a Third-Party Trustee Pending Removal

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED for trial setting. The Court intends to set the following matters for trial:

  1. The Petition for Instructions to the Trustee, etc., filed July 19, 2023 by Renee Rivera and Monica Rivera
  1. The Petition for Instructions and to Approve Accounting, filed September 5, 2024, by trustee Gloria Kosbie.
  1. The Petition of Monica Rivera for Orders to: (1) Remove Trustee Gloria Kosbie, etc., filed 12/1/25.

The parties are required to appear to discuss their availability for 2027 and estimates for length of trial.  The Court has no trial availability in 2026.

The “Reply to Objection,” etc., filed by Monica Rivera on July 17, 2026, is not a recognized type of pleading. The “Reply” filed by Renee Rivera on July 17, 2026, is not a recognized type of pleading.  California Probate Code §1000(a). The Court strikes said replies pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).  The Objection filed July 17, 2026 by the trustee is sustained for all the reasons stated therein.  The Supplemental Declaration filed by Renee Rivera on July 15, 2026 is ordered stricken.

*End of Tentative Rulings*