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

March 19, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.  

  1. Matter of the Robert C. Vance, Delores K Vance Trust
    24PR00273
    Status Update

Tentative Ruling: Per the recently filed joint status update, the matter will proceed to mediation, and the parties are continuing to work to resolve all outstanding issues. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to the case management conference calendar on June 25, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 for status of mediation or possible re-setting of motions. The parties are directed to file a status report at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing.

 

  1. Matter of The Jennifer L. Platt Trust
    25PR01102
    Motion to Quash Service or, in the Alternative, Dismiss the Action on the Ground of Inconvenient Forum

Tentative Ruling: The motion is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to the matter being raised in a different forum.

        I.   The Court has jurisdiction over the Jennfer L. Platt Trust, but Sonoma County is an inconvenient forum

The Court has jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the Jennifer L. Platt Trust (Jennifer’s Trust.) Jennifer’s Trust is administered within the state, and more specifically, within Sonoma County. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over Jennifer’s Trust, the internal affairs of the trust, the trustee, and the beneficiaries. California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §§17000(a); 17003(a) & (b). Sonoma County is also the proper venue for petitions concerning the internal affairs of Jennifer’s Trust by statute. Prob C §§17005(a)(2); 17002(a).

That said, Sonoma County is an inconvenient forum. Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere. Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751. The settlor was a resident of Colorado during all relevant time periods and died in Colorado. All of the trusts involved in this matter were drafted and executed in Colorado, and are expressly governed by Colorado law. The respondent was also a resident of Colorado during all relevant time periods. The Court finds it highly likely that relevant witnesses and documents are located in Colorado. The petitioner can seek reformation of the trust in Colorado based on mistake and if the instrument does not reflect the settlor’s true intent. See Poly Trucking, Inc. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc. (Colo. App. 2004) 93 P.3d 561, 563. Therefore, The Court finds Sonoma County is an inconvenient forum and that the matter is more justly and appropriately tried elsewhere.

       II.  The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent regarding the elder abuse claims

The court may exercise jurisdiction in proceedings under this division on any basis permitted by Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prob C §17004. A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §410.10. The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268. Under the minimum contacts test, an essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant's activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him or her to conduct his or her defense in that State. Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.  In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 788. Each defendant's contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually.  Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790.

Here, all the acts/behavior said to constitute elder abuse occurred in Colorado. The respondent (the alleged abuser) and the settlor (the alleged victim/survivor of the abuse) lived in Colorado during all relevant time periods. The trusts at issue were all created in Colorado. The petition does not state facts sufficient to find personal jurisdiction over the respondent, and there is no opposition to the present motion. The petitioner has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate minimum contacts/any basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over the respondent. See Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222 [The plaintiff has the burden of proof to show a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction.]

Counsel for the movant shall lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling. A written order will be filed by the Court.

 

***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?