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

• 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 Mitchell Family Trust
   25PR00766
   Petition for Order Determining Ownership of Real Property and Directing Conveyance; Petition to Confirm Successor Trustee, for Compulsory Accounting, Surcharge, and Related Relief

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The settlor-trustee transferred the subject real estate from the Mitchell Family Trust dated November 20, 2008 (“2008 Trust”) to the survivor’s trust created thereunder by deed recorded December 19, 2017. Said survivor’s trust was revoked by the surviving settlor on July 16, 2024. The 2008 Trust, at section 3.4, specifically indicates that upon revocation, the trust res is to revert to the settlor. As such, the property reverted to the surviving settlor when the survivor’s trust was revoked. Stopping here, the settlor’s estate would be the correct owner of the property and the petition should be granted pursuant to California Probate Code §850(a)(2)(D). However, in 2024, after revoking the 2008 survivor’s trust, the settlor created The Brad Alan Mitchell Revocable Trust dated July 16, 2024 (“2024 Trust.”) The schedule of trust assets for the 2024 Trust lists the property that is the subject of this petition in the schedule of trust assets. This would normally be sufficient evidence to confirm the property as an asset of the 2024 Trust. Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 947. While there is no request to confirm the property to the 2024 Trust, in light of the evidence presently before the Court, the Court will not issue an order confirming the property to the decedent’s estate.

The petitioner argues that the real estate was never transferred to the 2024 trust by deed, that a recorded deed would be required to transfer the property, and that listing the asset in the trust schedule of assets does not effect a transfer of the property. The petitioner cites the statute of frauds in support of his arguments. None of these arguments are correct. See Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548, 558.

The petitioner argues that the decedent’s 2008 will controls the disposition of the property, but the information presently before the Court shows that the asset is not part of the decedent’s estate and not subject to probate, because it is an asset of the 2024 Trust. See California Probate Code §7001. The petitioner argues that no one has asked the Court to confirm the real estate as an asset of the 2024 Trust. This is true, but the Court does not consider this a basis for granting the petition.

The petitioner argues that the validity of the 2024 Trust is contested by the underlying trust petition filed July 7, 2026. This is a complete fabrication. After reviewing the July 7, 2026 petition, the proposed order originally lodged with the petition, and the order after hearing on that petition, there is no contest of the 2024 Trust contained therein. In fact, the March 26, 2026 order after hearing on said petition specifically confirms Glynis Joy Alaniz as trustee of the 2024 Trust.  The petitioner also claims probate was open on the settlor’s will, but there is no proceeding this county to probate the will of Brad Alan Mitchell. A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. CA ST RPC Rule 3.3. By presenting these inaccuracies in support of argument, the petitioner’s counsel has violated California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7(b). The presentation to a court of a statement of fact known to be false presumes an intent to secure a determination based upon it and is a clear violation of the Business and Professions Code. Vickers v. State Bar of Cal. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 247, 253; California Business and Professions Code §6068(d). Acts of intentional dishonesty and deceit are reprehensible and constitute acts of moral turpitude. Lee v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 927, 941.

As for the Petition to Confirm Successor Trustee, for Compulsory Accounting, Surcharge, and Related Relief, the matter is CONTINUED to June 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an additional opportunity to comply with paragraph four (4) of the Court’s order on said petition, signed March 26, 2026.

***End of Tentative Rulings***