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

Honorable Rene A. Chouteau 
July 2, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.  

  1. Estate of Ryan Douglas Hamilton
    24PR00658
    Demurrer to Petition for Instructions

Tentative Ruling: The judicial officer presiding in Department 12 this week, the Honorable Rene A. Chouteau, was previously disqualified in this matter per the Order Granting Preemptory Challenge filed in this case on August 30, 2024. However, the Court does not consider the instant demurrer and the underling petition to be a continuation of the prior proceedings for which it was disqualified, because they do not involve substantially the same issues or matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues in the prior petitions. Stevens v SC (2022) 96Cal.4 54. See Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 962, 979.  Therefore, the Court will hear the demurrer. That said, if any party wishes to exercise any right to disqualify the Court, they may do so, as allowed by law.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED. Kathleen Mullins Henderson, Esq. (Ms. Henderson) does not have standing to pursue this petition. The petition also fails to state a valid cause of action because it purports to be a petition for instructions, but such a petition is for the purpose of instructing a personal representative, not instructing a third party such as the petitioner. Leave to amend is DENIED.  The movant’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED subject to the qualifications set forth below. The movant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

               I.   The petitioner does not have standing

Probate proceedings are statutory in nature, and standing is determined by the applicable statute. Estate of Tarlow (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 124, 132, review filed (Apr. 8, 2025). The petition does not indicate the applicable statute under which standing is to be determined. The movant asserts the petition is a petition for instructions pursuant to California Probate Code (Prob C) §9611(a). The Court finds this to be a correct characterization because the title of the petition indicates that it is a petition for instructions, and it seeks instructions. A petition for instructions in an estate case may only be brought by the executor or administrator. In re Webb's Estate (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 172, 174. The petitioner is not the executor or administrator here, so she does not have standing to petition the Court under Prob C §9611(a).

Even if the petition could be characterized as a Prob C §9613(a) petition, a Prob C §9614(a) petition, or even a Prob C §850(a)(2)(D) petition, the petitioner is not an “interested person” and has no standing. Courts have traditionally characterized an interested person as someone who could be financially affected by the probate proceedings. Conservatorship of Anne S. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1028. A person must have a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding to be an interested person under Prob C §48(a)(1). Estate of Sobol (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 771, 782. Ms. Henderson is not an interested person under Prob C §48(a)(1) because she has no property right in or claim against the trust estate. She is the former attorney of the decedent. She is not, by this petition, claiming that she is owed money from the estate or that she has any other interest in the estate res. She is in possession of documents that are potentially estate property, but this does not make her a person interested in the estate.

               II.   The petition fails to state a cause of action

The petition purports to be a petition for instructions, but such a petition is for the purpose of instructing a personal representative, not instructing a third party such as the petitioner. Prob C §§9611, 9613, and 9614 all provide for orders directed at a personal representative, not someone such as the petitioner. The petition asks the Court for instructions to the petitioner, not for a transfer of estate property, so the petition does not implicate Prob C §850(a)(2)(D). The petition fails to state any viable cause of action.

               III.   Leave to amend

Leave to amend should be granted where there is a reasonable possibility that its inadequacy can be cured by amendment. Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081, 1100. Here, there is no reasonable possibility that the petitioner can amend the petition to cure the aforementioned inadequacies. A petition for instructions cannot be used to instruct the petitioner in the way she seeks, as such a petition is only used to instruct a personal representative. Also, the petitioner is not an “interested person” with respect to this estate and thus would have no standing to bring other related causes of action (See e.g. Prob C §§9613(a), 9614(a), and 850(a)(2)(D).)

               IV.   Requests for judicial notice

The movant’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED subject to the following qualifications. For those documents that contain hearsay or otherwise contain disputable facts, even those that are part of the court record, the existence of those documents is noticed but the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the contents of the documents are not noticed. See Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 904, 914.

               V.   Sanctions

California Code of Civil Procedure §430.41 contains no provision that authorizes fee shifting. Amezcua v. Superior Court (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 116. Also, local rule 5.4 does not apply to probate proceedings, so a violation of that rule in the context of this proceeding does not justify sanctions under local rule 1.4. With respect to local rule 6.2(F), the petitioner’s declaration filed June 18, 2026 indicates a meet and confer did occur on or about April 30th or May 1st 2026, so the Court does not find the petitioner failed to comply with local rule 6.2.F.

Counsel for the moving party is directed to lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling. The Court will sign and file a written order after hearing.

 

  1. Estate of Donald A. Wiedmann
    SPR097345
    Motion for Relief from Order Entered May 8, 2026

Tentative Ruling: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged May 13, 2026. The proposed opposition must be filed and served by July 13, 2026, or it is deemed waived. The matter is SET for hearing August 28, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12. The parties are ordered to comply with local rules 6.2.F.2 and 6.2.F.3 in advance of the continued hearing.

The Court grants the motion pursuant to the mandatory relief provision of California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b). That section requires the Court to direct Christopher R. Milton, Esq. to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties. However, the would-be opposing party, Richard Wiedmann, and his attorney, Raymond J. Fullerton, Esq., have not opposed the motion, and the Court has no factual basis to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to award. Therefore, the Court will not issue an award of compensation at this time, but, Richard Wiedmann, and/or his attorney Raymond J. Fullerton, Esq., may bring a noticed motion for compensation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), which should include factual support for the amount requested.

***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?