Probate Law & Motion

Court Call is not permitted for this calendar.

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

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1603772262
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 377 2262
• And Password: 419097

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.

1. Matter of Patricia Joann Kitsman Trust
   25PR00024
   Demurrer to First Amended Petition to Determine Ownership of Property

Tentative Ruling:  NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  This matter is CONTINUED to August 7, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for the following reasons. 

          I.     Meet and Confer

Prior to filing a demurrer the demurring party shall meet and confer with the person who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer as provided in CCP §§430.41(a)(1) and (2). If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading. CCP §430.41(a).

Per CCP §§430.41(a)(3), the demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the following: (A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. (B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.

Arthur’s Counsel’s meet and confer declaration filed 5/20/25 reveals that there was no meet and confer. Counsel simply states that he placed a call to opposing counsel on May 20, 2025, the date the motion was filed, that the call was not answered, and that he left a voicemail.  The other meet and confer efforts described in counsel’s declaration occurred prior to the filing of the first demurrer and the filing of the amended complaint.  The Court notes that the declaration indicates an exhibit is attached, however there is no exhibit attached to the declaration in the Court’s file.  In addition, the meet and confer effort is described essentially as the moving party telling the other party why the moving party is right, and “that the matter should be dismissed.” 

The Court finds this to be an insufficient meet and confer process.  A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. CCP §§430.41(a)(4). However, trial courts are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process. If, upon review of a declaration under section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3), a court learns no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort. Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 357, fn 3.

To inform the discussion of the parties, the Court would ask the parties to discuss whether the petitioner can or cannot plead a claim of severance of the joint tenancy by alleging that the mutual execution of the trusts was tantamount to an agreement to sever the joint tenancy, as contemplated by CCP §683.2(d)(2).  No such claim is currently pled and the Court is unlikely to infer such.  In the absence of sufficient allegations to show that the right of survivorship is defeated, any 850 claim is likely defeated for the reasons set forth in the Court’s earlier ruling.  The Court suggests the parties not focus on the ability to produce admissible evidence in connection with the meet and confer effort given that in ruling on a demurrer, the court considers the allegations, and not the evidence. Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1009.

          II.     The filed opposition is not signed and is incomplete

The opposition in the Court’s file ends abruptly at page 6. There is no signature included in the opposition. The unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly. California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §128.7(a). The Court will expect a complete and signed version of the opposition to be filed at least 10 days in advance of the August 7, 2025, hearing.  The moving party has not raised this defect in their reply and the Court presumes they received a complete copy of the opposition. 

***End of Tentative Ruling***