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 Brian Thomas Mitchell
   25PR00881
   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Ruling: There is no proof of service of the motion in the Court’s file. The motion is DENIED without prejudice.
 

2. Conservatorship of Mary Keith Roberts
   SPR091285
   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Ruling: The proof of service by mail filed October 15, 2025 does not show service to the necessary parties (it does not show service to the client, Council on Aging Services for Seniors, or to the conservatee or her attorney).  The motion is DENIED without prejudice.
 

3. Matter of Jennifer R. Grandov Trust
   25PR00851
   Forni vs Grandov
   25CV05711
   Forni vs Smart
   25CV05718
   Motion to Consolidate

Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED. The Court does not order the consolidation of the Unlawful Detainer cases and the trust contest petition.  Only the right to possession is in issue in a summary unlawful detainer action. Duncan v. Kihagi (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 703, 709. Ordinarily, issues respecting the title to the property cannot be adjudicated in an unlawful detainer action. Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385. Defects in the unlawful detainer plaintiff's title are neither properly raised in a summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment. Id. California law does not prohibit an unlawful detainer defendant from interposing a defense involving title issues, so long as the defense, if established, would result in the tenant retaining possession of the premises. Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 801, 818, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 28, 2018). If some third party has title to the property, the tenant nonetheless has no right to possession. Id.  Here, even if Rosa Forni is found not to be the proper trustee and title holder, this does not establish that the movants have a right to possession. Therefore, the probate case does not impact the tenants’ right to possession, and the Court finds no common question of law or fact that would justify consolidating the actions. The California wrongful detainer statutes were enacted to provide an adequate, expeditious and summary procedure for regaining possession of real property wrongfully withheld by a tenant. Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 387. Ordering consolidation would result in unnecessary delay of the unlawful detainer case. See CCP §1048(a).

For the same reasons noted above, the Court does not find that staying the unlawful detainer cases would promote the ends of justice. The probate action will not materially affect the status of the actions to be stayed, and the unlawful detainer action will not have any res judicata or collateral estoppel effect with respect to the question of who is the proper trustee/title holder. Defects in the plaintiff’s title are not concluded by an unlawful detainer judgement. Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385. Staying the unlawful detainer actions would thwart the summary nature of the unlawful detainer proceedings, without justification

Counsel for Rosa Forni shall lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

The two unlawful detainer actions are RE-SET for a court trial on December 11, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 11.  No further trial notice will be issued.

***End of Tentative Rulings***