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. Estate of Maxine Edith Moore
   24PR00483
   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Ruling: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged October 15, 2025. The Court will include the date of the next scheduled hearing in the order. The Court will include the following language in the order: “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The effective date of the order relieving counsel is delayed until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.”

2. Matter of the Lawrence Peterson and Doris M. Peterson Trust
   SPR097108
   Motion to Set Expert Witness Deposition Fees of Glenn A. Hammel and for Sanctions Against Petitioners and their Counsel

Tentative Ruling: The motion to set expert witness deposition fees of Glenn A. Hammel is MOOT due to the withdrawal of Glenn A. Hammel from his involvement in this case prior to the taking of his deposition.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The movant asserts a right to sanctions under CCP §2023.020, which states, “Notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” The motion and the legal fees and costs associated therewith were not a result of the opponent’s failure to meet and confer. The movant served and filed the motion before the opponent had a reasonable opportunity to meet and confer. The movant’s initial meet and confer letter was sent on October 11, 2025, a Saturday. The movant requested the information called for by CCP §2034.470(b)(1)-(3), which is substantial. The opponent reasonably needed time to obtain that information from the expert witness. The motion was served on October 18, 2025. On October 20, 2025, just six business days after the initial meet and confer letter was sent, this motion was filed.

Determining the adequacy of an attempt at informal resolution contemplates the exercise of judicial discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In re Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1294. The statute requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294. Here, the Court cannot conclude an opportunity existed for a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution in light of the timing of events.   

Counsel for the parties opposing the motion shall lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

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

Tentative Ruling: The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The second amended petition does not allege that the joint tenancy was severed. The second amended petition does not allege that there was an agreement to sever the joint tenancy, by the execution of the trusts or otherwise. The second amended petition substantially repeats the arguments of the prior petitions and relies heavily on the execution of the trusts (and the inclusion of the property in the schedule of trust assets) in support of the California Probate Code §850 petition. The unrecorded trusts cannot defeat the right of survivorship associated with the joint tenancy form of title, which is reflected in the recorded deed(s). See California Civil Code §§683.2(a)(2) and 683.2(c); Pearce v. Briggs (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 466, 481, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 31, 2021); Estate of England (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1, 5, 7. While the opposition to the demurrer includes assertions that the joint tenancy was severed and that In re Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434 is applicable, arguments made in the opposition do not cure the defects in the pleading. The pleading, and the properly pleaded allegations, are the focus of a demurrer. See CCP §430.10(e); People v. Superior Court (Woodward) (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 679, 693.

Leave to amend is denied. Denying leave to amend is proper where it is probable from the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead that plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967. The petitioner has had two opportunities to cure the defects in the petition but continues to assert essentially the same arguments. The Court openly discussed a potentially viable theory in prior rulings, to no avail. Therefore, the Court finds it is probable from the nature of the defects and the previous unsuccessful attempts that the plaintiff cannot state a cause of action.

Judicial notice may be taken of the existence and facial contents of recorded real property records where the authenticity of the document is not challenged. San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 266, 281. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence and facial contents of the Deed of Trust by Arthur Adams and Patricia Kitsman as Joint Tenants, recorded February 21, 2018 and the Deed of Trust by Arthur Adams and Patricia Kitsman as Joint Tenants, recorded September 10, 2019.

A court may take 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. Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the exitance, as well as the truth and meaning, of the Order On Demurrer To Petition, filed 5/2/25 and the Ruling Issued on Submitted Matter, filed 8/8/25, with adopted tentative ruling.

 If the petitioner intends to request a Breslin mediation order they must do so by a separate noticed motion.

Counsel for Arthur L. Adams is directed to submit an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

***End of Tentative Rulings***