Skip to main content.

Conservatorships

If the tentative ruling does not require appearances, and is accepted, no appearance is necessary. 

Any party who wishes to be heard in response or opposition to the Court’s tentative ruling MUST NOTIFY the Court’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6893 and MUST NOTIFY all other parties of the intent to appear, and whether they will appear in person or by Zoom.  Both notifications must be completed no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court (business) day immediately before the day of the hearing.

Unless notification of an appearance has been given as provided above, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court the day of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar, absent an objection from an interested party per Probate Code section 1043.    

To Access the Probate Examiner Notes:

  • Access the Portal
  • Accept the Terms
  • Choose Smart Search, insert your case number, and follow all instructions.

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” Online

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” By Phone:

  • Call: +1 669-254-5252 US (San Jose) and enter the 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

December 19, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Conservatorship of Mary Ann Riggs
    25PR00947
    Appointment of Conservator

Tentative Ruling:  NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. In light of the Request for Dismissal filed on 12/4/25, the matter is DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Barbara Anne Hextrum
    25PR01163
    Appointment of Conservator

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. This matter is CONTINUED to January 16, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12. As objections have been filed, pursuant to local rule 6.2 (F)(2), the parties are directed to meet and confer and make a reasonable and 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 (F)(3).

As to the matters raised by the pleadings, the Court directs as follows:

1)  Is the capacity declaration sufficient to support the establishment of a conservatorship?  It does not include a diagnosis of a major neurocognitive disorder.  Is this potential issue moot if the conservatee does not object to a conservatorship?  The Court requests an update from conservatee’s counsel whether she does or does not object to the establishment of a conservatorship (apart and aside from the identity of who would be appointed conservator).

2) To the extent the Objectors seek an accounting from an agent appointed under a Power of Attorney they should follow the law and file a petition pursuant to Probate Code section 4540, et seq.  Raising the matter in an objection to the establishment of a conservatorship, while perhaps relevant to inform on the grounds of their objection, will not result in the Court ordering an accounting or the other relief available under section 4540, et seq.

3) The parties are directed to discuss the possibility of appointment of a professional fiduciary as a conservator of the estate, or the use of an order of substituted judgment for the establishment of a trust for the proposed conservatee and appointment of a professional fiduciary as the trustee.  The Court also requires an update on whether there is a trust already existing (which appears to be the case) and whether it has provisions for appointment of a successor trustee upon the incapacity of the settlor.  A court will only establish a conservatorship of the estate where it is the least restrictive alternative.  Otherwise, to the extent the proposed conservatee, when competent, expressed her own plans for who should be in charge of her estate should she become incapacitate, a court will generally follows those wishes.

4)  The Court orders that the Petitioner provide online access to the Objectors to the medical records of their mother, proposed conservatee within 2 business days of this hearing.  The Objectors may “view only” the records and shall not initiate affirmative communication directly with the medical providers without first returning to court and seeking permission to do so.

5)  The parties are ordered to discuss a visitation schedule that allows, at a minimum, phone calls or virtual visits (i.e., Zoom, Facetime) between the proposed conservatee and any or all of the Objectors or other relatives within the second degree at specifically agreed upon and scheduled times.  These visits shall be available to occur a minimum of 4 days a week, including Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.  The phone calls or virtual visits shall not be recorded by anyone or monitored by anyone on the proposed conservatee’s end other than to initially facilitate her use of the phone or other technology.  The parties may also schedule in person visits, the above are only the minimum.  Any in person visits shall not require significant (i.e., more than 20 minutes’ drive time) travel of the proposed conservatee.

 The Court also notes that the selection of a conservator of the person or estate, or both, is solely in the court’s discretion, and in making the selection the court is to be guided by what appears to be in the best interests of the proposed conservatee. Probate Code §1812(a).  A court cannot appoint anyone conservator who has not petitioned to do so.  There is presently only one petition pending before the Court.  To the extent the parties are unable to reach a resolution as a result of their meet and confer efforts, and a competing petition is filed, the Court will likely set an evidentiary hearing to take evidence and allow it to exercise its discretion appropriately.

Petitioner is directed to pay the court investigator assessment of $600.00 within 30 days, payable to the Sonoma County Superior Court, in care of the Probate Division. Please include the case number and name of the conservatorship.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Alexandra Advocate
    25PR01167
    Appointment of Conservator

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. This matter is CONTINUED to January 23, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12. As objections have been filed, pursuant to local rule 6.2 (F)(2), the parties are directed to meet and confer and make a reasonable and 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 (F)(3).  The Court is aware the proposed conservatee has indicated a desire to appear at the hearing.  She, or any other party, may still request to appear using the process outlined on the Court’s website.  However, the Court has not required appearances in light of the fact it will not reach the merits of the petition at this hearing and did not feel appearances were a good use of the parties’ time or beneficial to resolution of the case.

The Court also notes that the Third Amendment to the Petition for Appointment of Conservator, filed 12/11/25, was filed so close in time to the present hearing that it does not allow for meaningful or timely review by the Court or the Office of the Court Investigator.  The petitioner is advised that the Court has not confirmed whether procedural defects still remain that will prevent the Court reaching the merits. 

 

  1. Conservatorship of Frank Messner
    25PR01195
    Review

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Court will sign the proposed Order submitted on December 17, 2025.

The matter is CONTINUED to Friday, February 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 for annual review and report of the court investigator.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Christine Jama
    25PR01311
    Appointment of Temporary Conservator

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Petition for Appointment of Temporary Conservator of the Person and Estate is DENIED. There are no exigent circumstances warranting establishment of a temporary conservatorship and thus no good cause shown.

However, the Court orders that petitioner shall have full legal authority to represent the interests of the proposed conservatee in connection with any application for, proceedings about, or appeal of the proposed conservatee’s In Home Supportive Services benefits.  This order shall expire in one year absent a further order of the Court extending this authority.  Petitioner’s counsel shall submit an order after hearing consistent with this ruling and may include any other language he thinks necessary to empower the petitioner to advocate for his sister in connection with these benefits.

The matter remains SET on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12, for hearing on the general conservatorship.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Andrew Bennett Lozano
    25PR01319
    Appointment of Temporary Conservator

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Petition of Harvey E. Goldfine, as Temporary Conservator of the Estate, is APPROVED.

The matter remains SET on Friday, February 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12, for hearing on the general conservatorship.

 

  1. Limited Conservatorship of Kelly Michelle Hernandez
    25PR01453
    Appointment of Temporary Conservator

Tentative Ruling:  NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The petition for temporary limited conservatorship is DENIED.

The Parties are notified that if appearances are requested, as a confidential matter, this case will be called at the end of the calendar and they may anticipate a significant wait prior to the court calling the matter. 

 

  1. Conservatorship of Roxanne Johnson
    SPR78053
    Status Update

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The conservatorship shall continue without modification.

The matter is SET on Friday, December 17, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 for the biennial review and report of the court investigator.

Conservators are directed to pay the court investigator assessment of $600.00 within 30 days, payable to the Sonoma County Superior Court, in care of the Probate Division. Please include the case number and name of the conservatorship.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Richard T. Tweedie
    SPR095300
    Status Update

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The matter is CONTINUED to January 9, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 for the report of the Court Investigator.

 

         

***End of Tentative Rulings***

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?