Skip to main content.

Probate Law & Motion

PLEASE NOTE:  Masks need not be worn in the courthouse if you are fully vaccinated.

Persons are considered vaccinated two weeks after the final dose in a primary series of vaccinations.

All unvaccinated persons entering any Sonoma County Superior Courthouse, including any remote jury selection location, shall wear a face covering at all times compliant with all California State Health Orders and CAL/OSHA standards which must completely cover both the nose and mouth. 

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 23 “Zoom” Online

To Join Department 23 “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 23:

  • 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

Hon. Jennifer V. Dollard
April 18, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. 

  1. Matter of the Gerald Matheson and Nancy C. Dayton-Matheson Revocable Trust
    SPR096861
    Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling: The Court takes judicial notice of the court’s February 23, 2023, Case Management Conference Minute Order and February 23, 2023, Case Management Conference Tentative Ruling.

The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 11, 2024. The Court finds that Judge William Barry’s February 23, 2023 Order regarding the filing of a petition on or before March 30, 2023 was in reference to the affirmative relief requested in Nancy C. Dayton-Matheson’s (“Nancy”) opposition to the Interim Trustee’s November 8, 2022 petition for instructions. Affirmative relief may not be claimed in a responsive pleading. California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30. See also California Probate Code §1000. Nancy’s Petition to establish trusts ownership of property, etc., filed February 23, 2024, requests the same or substantially similar relief as was requested in said opposition. As Judge Barry ordered that such a petition must be brought on or before March 30, 2023, or be waived, which order was within his power pursuant to California Probate Code §17206, the Court grants the motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).

 

  1. Estate of Earl Kennedy
    SPR097830
    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things and for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court also exercises its power to limit the scope of discovery in some respects, as set forth in detail below.

  1. The Court has considered the untimely opposition

While the opposition was not served and filed nine (9) court days prior to the hearing, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b), the Court finds good cause here to consider the opposition, and no undue prejudice to the moving party. Trial courts are authorized to consider late-filed opposition papers for good cause if there is no undue prejudice to the moving party.  Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602, 613. The circumstances surrounding an untimely opposition should be viewed under the strong policy of the law favoring the disposition of cases on the merits. Id.

  1. The Court finds the meet and confer efforts adequate

Regarding Gaffney’s argument that the meet and confer effort was not code-compliant due to failure to comply with the procedure set forth in California Rules of Court rule 3.724 (i.e. telephonic or in person meet and confer,) failure to comply with said rule does not constitute grounds to deny a discovery motion based on an inadequate meet and confer. The Court finds that an adequate meet and confer occurred based on the written communications between the parties presented in counsels’ declarations.

  1. Issues to be tried

Per the Court’s December 14, 2023, tentative ruling, the issues to be tried in this case are (1) whether Isom should be removed as personal representative, (2) whether the 2003 will is authentic, and (3) whether Gaffney’s petition should be granted. These issues frame the Court’s assessment as to the relevance of the information sought via discovery here.

  1. Rulings on Specific Discovery Requests

    a. Demand for Production No. 1
    Objections as to overbreadth, undue burden, and invasion of privacy are SUSTAINED. The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 1.

    b. Demand for Production No.2
    The motion is GRANTED as to Demand for Production No. 2. However, the Court exercises its authority under California Code of Civil Procedure §2017.020 to limit the scope of discovery here to documents that show whether Gaffney had an involvement in decedent’s business or helped decedent in other ways. This information is relevant to Gaffney’s credibility, as she has made a sworn statement indicating that she assisted decedent with his business or helped decedent in other ways. Specific business practices or other private information regarding the business (financial information, account information, etc.) is not discoverable, and may be redacted.

    c. Demand for Production No. 4
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 4. Gaffney asserts that she has provided all responsive documents, and the Court does not find reason to conclude that this response is incomplete, evasive, or inadequate. The Court will not require Gaffney to represent that she has made diligent search and reasonable inquiry pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, because she has not asserted an inability to comply with this demand.

    d. Demand for Production No. 6
    The motion is GRANTED as to Demand for Production No. 6. As Gaffney asserts that there are no responsive documents, she is ordered to provide a verified supplemental response affirming that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand but that she is unable to comply pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230.

    e. Demand for Production No. 8
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 8. The response indicates that after diligent search no responsive documents were located.

    f. Demand for Production No. 9
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 9. Gaffney asserts that she has provided all responsive documents, and the Court does not find reason to conclude that this response is incomplete, evasive, or inadequate.

    g. Demand for Production No. 10
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 10. Gaffney asserts that she has provided all responsive documents, and the Court does not find reason to conclude that this response is incomplete, evasive, or inadequate.

    h. Demand for Production No. 13
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 13. Gaffney asserts that she has provided all responsive documents, and the Court does not find reason to conclude that this response is incomplete, evasive, or inadequate.

    i. Demand for Production No. 14
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 14. Gaffney asserts that she has provided all responsive documents, and the Court does not find reason to conclude that this response is incomplete, evasive, or inadequate.

    j. Demands for Production Nos. 19 and 20
    The motion is GRANTED as to Demands for Production Nos. 19 and 20, but the Court exercises its authority under California Code of Civil Procedure §2017.020 to limit the scope of this discovery. As soon as reasonably possible, the decedent’s cellular telephone, and any other of decedent’s electronic devices in Gaffney’s possession, shall be provided to a neutral third-party forensic analyst for the sake of determining (1) whether the devices were tampered with at any time such that any of the information presented by the devices is not authentic, and if so, what information was tampered with; (2) whether the devices contain any information pertaining to the 2003 will, and if so, what is that information; (3) whether any of the text messages presented in support of Gaffney’s position(s) are inauthentic; and (4) whether the text messages between Isom and decedent that have been produced by Isom are stored on the devices. Counsel shall submit a joint proposed order regarding this issue that specifies (1) the date by which the phone will be provided to the analyst, (2) the identity of the analyst, and (3) the method the analysist will use to transmit his findings to the parties. If counsel cannot agree to terms of a joint proposed order, each counsel shall lodge their own proposed order, and the court will fashion an appropriate order after considering the proposed order of each party. The proposed order(s) regarding this issue shall be lodged on or before April 29, 2024.

    k. Demand for Production No. 23
    The motion is GRANTED as to Demand for Production No. 23, but the court exercises its authority under California Code of Civil Procedure §2017.020 to limit the scope of this discovery to those documents that relate to Gaffney’s contact with Spencer Simons regarding the permission to pay expenses of decedent out of is business account, including without limitation his response to said request for permission.

    l. Demand for Production No. 26
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 26. The response indicates that after diligent search no responsive documents were located.

    m. Demand for Production No. 32
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 32. The response indicates that after diligent search no responsive documents are in her care, custody, or control.

    n. Demand for Production No. 36
    To the extent Gaffney has failed identify the documents being produced in response to this demand as required by California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.280(a), The motion is GRANTED as to Demand for Production No. 36. Gaffney is required to supply a verified supplemental response identifying which of the produced documents are in response to this request.

    o. Demand for Production No. 37
    To the extent Gaffney has failed identify the documents being produced in response to this demand as required by California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.280(a), The motion is GRANTED as to Demand for Production No. 37. Gaffney is required to supply a verified supplemental response identifying which of the produced documents are in response to this request.

    p. Demand for Production No. 39
    The motion is DENIED as to Demand for Production No. 39. Gaffney asserts that she has provided all responsive documents, and the Court does not find reason to conclude that this response is incomplete, evasive, or inadequate.

    q. Demand for Production No. 41
    The motion is GRANTED as to Demand for Production No. 41, but the Court exercises its authority under California Code of Civil Procedure §2017.020 to limit the scope of this discovery to any documents in Gaffney’s possession relating to (1) Gaffney encouraging or facilitating the occupancy of decedent’s residence, without payment of rent, by any individuals; (2) Gaffney causing Isom to be denied access to decedent’s residence and/or property; and/or (3) any of decedent’s personal property being removed from decedent’s residence.

  1. Sanctions

    Regarding sanctions, as each party has taken both successful and unsuccessful positions regarding this motion, and the Court does not find a misuse of the discovery process, or that either party acted without substantial justification. The Court finds the imposition of sanctions to be unjust. No sanctions are ordered.

Counsel for the moving party shall submit a proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

 

***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?