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 Patricia Joann Kitsman Trust
   25PR00024
   Motion of CCP 473 Motion and Further Briefing; Request for Breslin Order

Tentative Ruling: The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party from a proceeding taken against the party through the party’s inadvertence or excusable neglect. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §473(b). The movant’s failure to timely request to appear at the hearing and notify opposing counsel of said appearance was a result of inadvertence or excusable neglect because movant’s counsel was attacked by a dog and was unavailable at the time the request to appear should have been made and opposing counsel should have been notified. As a result, no oral argument was had.  Therefore, the CCP §473(b) aspect of the petition is GRANTED and APPEARANCES ARE REQUIRED for oral argument on the demurrer to the second amended petition. For completeness, the Court re-posts it earlier tentative ruling here:

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.

No further briefing is allowed and any factual assertions not contained in the papers associated with the demurrer to the second amended petition will not be considered.  That said, the Court’s view is that as to the question of leave to amend only, the Court may consider a matter raised for the first time at oral argument.  As a plaintiff can raise for the first time on appeal the basis for leave to amend, it makes no sense that they could not also do so before the trial court during oral argument.  See CCP §472c and Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1386.  Plaintiff now asserts he can allege that the joint tenancy was severed by the creation of reciprocal trusts, pointing to the information from the Scheer law firm.  However, the Court has now taken judicial notice of two deeds of trust recorded many years after any such documents were created that recorded title in joint tenancy.  Any argument regarding leave to amend must also address these facts, as it is the plaintiff’s burden to show how the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action. Id.

As for the request for a mediation order, the Breslin v. Breslin (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 801

 (“Breslin”) court held that a probate court has the power to order parties to mediation and that adequately notified interested persons who fail to participate in court ordered mediation cannot later contest the resulting settlement. However, the Breslin case does not state that mediation must be ordered in every case, and it does not tell the Court when or for what reasons mediation can or should be ordered.  Here, the movant does not say why this case is appropriate for mediation or ready for mediation, she simply asks that mediation be ordered and cites Breslin. The reply also does not provide reasons why mediation is appropriate here, but simply says that the Respondent claims mediation is expensive after paying for three different demurrers. The opponent argues that the cost of mediation is not justified because the petitioner’s case is unfounded. The Court is not persuaded that a mediation order is justified, so this aspect of the motion is DENIED.

2. Estate of Frank Byron White
   25PR01258
   Motion for Reconsideration of Order Vacating Hearing and Denying Standing

Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED. The motion is untimely under California Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a). Also, the motion fails to present any new facts, circumstances, or change in the law and the Court finds no other basis to reconsider its December 16, 2025 order.

***End of Tentative Rulings***