Skip to main content.

Probate Law & Motion

Advisements

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 3:15 p.m. on the day of the hearing. 

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

May 21, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.  

  1. Matter of Patricia Joann Kitsman Trust
    25PR00024
    Matter of Patricia Joann Kitsman Trust

Tentative Ruling:

     I.  The Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED.

The movant’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED, subject to the following qualifications. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence and facial contents of the recorded real property records to the extent the authenticity of the document is not challenged. See San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 266, 281. With respect to the prior filings in this case, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of each document, but only takes judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments. Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 904, 914.

     II.  The Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.

The objections filed March 18, 2026 are OVERRULED. The movant’s evidentiary objections are misplaced at this stage of the proceeding. In ruling on a demurrer, a court considers the allegations, and not the evidence. Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1009. A demurrer lies to challenge only the pleadings on their face; evidentiary matters are therefore not properly presented in support of, or in opposition to, a demurrer. People v. B & I News, Inc. (1984) 164 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7. An order on a motion to prohibit an attorney from testifying is a discovery or evidentiary ruling, irrespective of the fact that it happens to involve an attorney. Sheehy v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 178, 183. Whether claims are barred from disclosure by the lawyer-client privilege is an issue incapable of resolution in a challenge to the facial sufficiency of the petition. General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1190.

A pleading may be accompanied by exhibits or may incorporate factual support by reference. People v. Reynolds (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1410. A judge may consider these exhibits in ruling on a demurrer. Richtek USA, Inc. v UPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 658. Allegations to be accepted as true necessarily include the contents of exhibits. Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 597. In deciding a demurrer, the court relies on and accepts as true the contents of the exhibits. Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 504-505. In deciding a demurrer, the Court is not concerned with the petitioner's ability to prove the allegations or any possible difficulties in making such proof. Tindell v. Murphy (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1247.

     III.  The Demurrer is OVERRULED

The pertinent allegations contained in the Third Amended Petition (TAP) are as follows: The settlors were joint owners of the property. After becoming joint tenants, the settlor and the movant each executed trusts that are described as “substantially identical,” “mutual,” and “reciprocal.” The same attorney prepared the trusts, and the trusts were prepared, and ultimately executed, concurrently. Under the trusts, the settlors’ respective interests in the property was to be a trust asset. The one to die first gave the other a right to occupy in the real property until their death, with the remainder interest (50% each) going to their respective issue. The essential allegation of the TAP is contained in paragraph 18, which states:  “As a result of the reciprocal trusts created and executed … the right of survivorship was severed.”  The jointly executed reciprocal trusts alleged arguably reflect an agreement to sever the joint tenancy (because they are contrary to the right of survivorship).  This is sufficient to implicate the possible application of California Civil Code §683.2(d)(2). 

The petitioner specifically argues that the circumstances presented here are analogous to the circumstances in Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4™ 1434, 1443 (Powell) such that the rule from that case should control.  In Powell a joint tenancy was severed when the joint tenants executed a trust, the terms of which eliminated the right of survivorship (in that case it was one trust.) See In re Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1442–1443. The trusts here were not one instrument, but the petitioner asserts that given the circumstances under which they were executed, there was a severance of the joint tenancy.  A demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is a general demurrer, which must fail if the petition states a cause of action under any theory. CCP §430.10(e); Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Steward Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.  The allegations here are sufficient to withstand demurrer.

 

  1. Estate of Carolyn Anne Irwin
    25PR00478
    Petitioner Heriberto O. Orduna Solano’s Motion (1) to Compel Responses Without Objections; (2) to Deem Matters Admitted; and (3) for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: At issue here are Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions, propounded by the movant in November of 2025. There is no dispute that verified responses to the discovery were not timely served. Some initial unverified responses were served in March of 2026, then, after the motion was filed, verifications were delivered, also in March of 2026. After meet and confer, amended verified responses were delivered on April 30, 2026.

     A.  Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §2030.290(a). The propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. CCP §2030.290(b).

Here, the party to whom the interrogatories were directed failed to serve a timely response, so any objection to the interrogatories is waived, and any option to produce writings under section 2030.230 is waived. To the extent the nonmovant has failed to answer any interrogatories (including Form Interrogatory 15.1,) or to the extent the belated responses contained objections, the nonmovant it ORDERED to deliver verified responses, without objection, within ten (10) days of notice of entry of the order on this motion.

     B.  Requests for Production of Documents

Pursuant to CCP §2031.300(a), if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).

Here, the party to whom the demand for inspection, etc. is directed failed to timely respond, so objections are waived. To the extent the nonmovant has failed to respond to requests for production of documents, or to the extent the belated responses contained objections, the nonmovant it ORDERED to deliver verified responses, without objection, within ten (10) days of notice of entry of the order on this motion. Also, to the extent there has been any failure to respond to the requests for production of documents, responses and the production itself is hereby compelled Pursuant to CCP §§2031.300(b) and 2031.320(a).

     C.  Requests for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP §2033.280(a), if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).

Here, objections to the requests for admission are waived due to the nonmovant’s failure to serve a timely response. There is no motion to be relieved from the waiver. Therefore, to the extent the nonmovant has failed to respond to requests for admission, or to the extent the belated responses contained objections, the nonmovant it ORDERED to deliver verified responses, without objection, within ten (10) days of notice of entry of the order on this motion.

Pursuant to CCP §2033.280(b), the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). Pursuant to CCP §2033.280(c), the court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

Here, the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on this motion, a response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. Thus, the matters are NOT DEEMED ADMITTED.

     D.  Monetary Sanctions

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. California Rule of Court Rule 3.1348(a). Pursuant to CCP §2023.030(a), The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to impose discovery sanctions and in setting the amount of monetary discovery sanctions. Morales v. City and County of San Francisco (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 43, 49, review denied (Nov. 25, 2025).

The Court does not find that the nonmovant acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. However, counsel for the nonmovant’s declaration in opposition states that her client is responsive to her communications, and has provided her with all of the requested information. Counsel also states, “any delays have been the result of my circumstances, not any conduct by my client.” The Court finds it unjust to order sanctions against Maureen Cook Schwin personally.

The Court awards $8,125.00 in monetary sanctions in favor of the movant, against Audrey Gerard, Esq., pursuant to CCP §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c), and 2023.030(a). Sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of the order on this motion.

Counsel for the movant is directed to lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling. The Court will file a written order.

 

  1. Estate of Robert Blair
    25PR01316
    Petition Under Probate Code Section 850 for Order Determining Adverse Claim to Real Property; for Conveyance/Transfer; and for Related Relief

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED to set an evidentiary hearing on the 850 petition. Counsel should be prepared to discuss time estimates and availability for the evidentiary hearing.  The Court has reviewed the supplemental brief filed by petitioner Vicki Blair on May 14, 2026. 

 

***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?