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 the Robert G. Pitts Separate Property Trust
   24PR00226
   Motion to Compel Baker Tilly Documents from Respondent Olga Orlova and Request for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: The Court has received the notice of conditional settlement. This matter is DROPPED from calendar. The jury trial date of 2/27/26 and the trust petition hearing date of 3/27/26 are vacated.  The matter is SET for Case Management Conference on July 23, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of settlement.  No appear will be required and the matter will be dropped from calendar if the matter has been dismissed, or other order issued fully concluding the case, prior to that time.

2. Matter of the Lyndell Mack Boyd & Patricia Y. Boyd Revocable Trust Dated December 11, 1997 as Restated July 22, 2010
   25PR00088
   Motion for Order Enjoining Respondent/Trustee of The Survivor’s Trust from Using Trust Funds to Litigate Trustee’s Beneficial Interest and for Return of Monies Removed from the Trust Used for Payment of Litigation Expenses

Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED. The Court considers the motion to be a request for a preliminary injunction. The moving parties, petitioners, fail to show that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. This ruling has no prejudicial effect on the ultimate allocation of attorney fees and costs.

A preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of her claim. Iloh v. Regents of University of California (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 513, 522. An injunction is prohibitory if it requires a person to refrain from a particular act and mandatory if it compels performance of an affirmative act that changes the position of the parties. Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 435, 446. Here, the moving parties seek an order preventing the trustee, respondent and opposing party, from using trust funds to defend against the petition, and to return trust funds already used in the defense, prior to a full adjudication. Therefore, the Court considers this motion a request for both a prohibitory and mandatory preliminary injunction. In this regard, this case is procedurally postured quite differently that almost all of the legal authorities discussed by the parties, with the exception of Doolittle v. Exchange Bank (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 529.  And here, unlike in the Doolittle case, the Court is not presented with clear and express language of the trust instrument addressing the issue.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that she will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. Iloh v. Regents of University of California (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 513, 522. In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court weighs two interrelated factors: the likelihood the moving party ultimately will prevail on the merits, and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. Doolittle v. Exchange Bank, supra at pg. 546. With respect to a preliminary injunction, courts should only grant mandatory preliminary injunctions “in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.” Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4^th 1487, 1493.

The moving parties do not show that they will suffer irreparable harm if the motion is not granted. Nor do the moving parties show that they will suffer greater harm than the respondent if the motion is denied. While the opposition indicates the respondent does not personally have very significant cash assets, the accounting shows the value of the trust res is over $7 million dollars. The respondent correctly argues that her share of the trust can be surcharged in the event the use of trust funds to pay her attorney is found to be an improper charge against the trust. Also, the respondent asserts she will be substantially unable to participate in this litigation without using trust funds, showing that there will be significant harm to the opponent if the preliminary injunction is granted.

As to the likelihood that the moving parties will ultimately prevail on the merits, the Court acknowledges there is some likelihood that the trustee’s use of trust funds to defend the petition will ultimately be deemed improper.  This is particularly so given the capacity declaration completed by Dr. Kim just days before the challenged amendment was signed by the settlor.  That declaration establishes that the settlor suffered from a major impairment of his mental facilities in the following areas:

-Ability to attend and concentrate;
-Understand and appreciate quantities;
-Reason using abstract concepts;
-Plan, organize and carry out actions in one’s own rational self-interest;
-Reason logically;
-The date and place.

It is a surprise to the Court frankly that an experienced estate planning attorney in receipt of this information would conclude a potential client had capacity to execute a trust amendment.  These are the very factors listed as criteria for capacity to make a trust amendment.  See Probate Code section 811.  However, the Court also understand this is but one piece of evidence. 

Even if the petitioners establish, in the context of this motion, the likelihood they will prevail at trial, they have not established both elements necessary for a preliminary injunction.  Considering this and the respondent’s arguments regarding the trust terms allowing such expenditures, as well as the ruling in Hollaway v. Edwards (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 94, 99-100 [Where a removal petition calls into question the trustee’s ability to properly administer the trust, the Court has the discretion to order payment of attorney’s fees from the trust estate to a trustee if the trustee successfully defends the removal petition.] the showing required for a preliminary injunction is not present.

Counsel for Victoria Stokes shall lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling in accordance with the procedure set forth under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1312.

The Court notes this matter is currently set for trial on February 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.  Due to the Court’s availability, the parties are advised that if the matter confirms for trial, the first day of trial will be Tuesday, February 24, 2026.

***End of Tentative Rulings***