Skip to main content.

Trusts

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 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing.  

To Access the Probate Examiner Notes:

  • Access the Portal
  • Accept the Terms
  • Select Smart Search, enter your case number, and follow the instructions.

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

May 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Elmer Leroy Martinelli Trust
    24PR00433
    Petition for Order Determining Validity of Trust Amendments

Tentative Ruling: Per the parties’ recently filed statements of issues, private mediation is scheduled for May 7, 2026. This matter is CONTINUED to August 7, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. Should the matter not be fully resolved in advance of the continued hearing, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3.

 

  1. Matter of Scott Lindquist OBRA 93 Special Needs Trust
    24PR00582
    First Account and Report of Trustee; Petition for Settlement; for Reduction of Bond; for Approval of Trustee Fees; and for Approval of Fees and Costs Advanced to Attorneys

Tentative Ruling: The trust terms require accountings to comply with Probate Code (Prob C) §§2620-2628. Trust, 4.03 at subsection 6. Prob C §2620(c) requires financial statements to be lodged in support of this accounting. No supporting financial statements are lodged. As this is the first accounting, the petitioner must provide to the Court all account statements showing the account balance immediately preceding the date she was appointed and all account statements showing the account balance as of the closing date of the first court accounting.  Other categories of financial statements are also required under Prob C §2620(c), if applicable. Local Rule 6.8.C requires that such statements be lodged and not filed. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to August 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to lodge the supporting financial statements at least 14 days prior to the hearing.

 

  1. Matter of Clark 2001 Trust, dated April 24, 2001 and Amended March 2, 2021 and July 15, 2024 Trust
    25PR00434
    Petition to Determine Validity of Trust Amendments on Grounds of Undue Influence, and Damages and Attorney Fees

Tentative Ruling: There have been three prior continuances in this matter. The petitioner has not complied with the Court’s prior orders to meet and confer, has not timely filed a statement of issues, and has not addressed whether the exemption trust was ever created/funded.  In light of the failure to meaningfully participate in this case since filing the petition this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Sonoma County Local Rule 6.2.C.2.c.

 

  1. Matter of Craig W. Furber Trust
    25PR01130
    Petition for Court Order Authorizing Transfer of Trustor’s Property to Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 12, 2026.

 

  1. Matter of Norman E. Richtick, B Joann Richtik Trust
    25PR01187
    Verified Petition to Remove Trustees and Appoint a Successor Trustee; for a Trust Accounting; for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees; Removal of Personal Representatives

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 21, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 for the reasons set forth below.

The Court’s January 23, 2026 ruling points out that Cole Walker Frietas and Kayla Freitas have not been served in strict accordance with CRC Rule 7.51(a)(2) and 7.51(d) (rules providing for direct notice to minors.) A new notice of hearing was filed 3/2/26 and a proof of service is attached, but that proof of service is not signed. The notice defects have not been cured. The petitioner is again directed to timely serve code compliant notice of the continued hearing to Cole Walker Freitas and Kayla Freitas.

The supplement filed March 2, 2026 was late. The Court’s January 23, 2026 ruling required the supplement to be served and filed by February 27, 2026. There is also no proof of service of the supplement in the Court’s file. The Court STRIKES the March 2, 2026 supplement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).

The petitioner’s “Reply” filed May 4, 2026 is not a recognized type of pleading. See California Probate Code §1000(a) [Except to the extent that this code provides applicable rules, the rules of practice applicable to civil actions constitute the rules of practice in, proceedings under this code.] And California Probate Code §1043.  The Court STRIKES the May 4, 2026 reply pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).

The Court finds that the cost of accountings are properly charged against the trust estate. The accountings are an aspect of trust administration that benefit the trust, so the trust must pay the costs of the accountings. See Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 267; See also California Probate Code §15684.

As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in compliance with local rules 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing in compliance with local rules 6.2.F.3.

 

  1. Matter of The David Dews, Jr Trust
    26PR00036
    Petition for Order to Confirm Validity of Trust and Assets in Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 7, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to trail the Cross-Petition to Invalidate Trust filed April 23, 2026. The instant petition seeks to confirm the validity of the David Dews, Jr Trust and seeks to confirm that certain property is held by the trust. The objection and “cross”-petition assert that the trust is invalid for a number of reasons. The Court finds it appropriate to adjudicate the issues related to the validity of the trust prior to deciding the California Probate Code (Prob C) §850 aspect of this petition.

As to service of the supplement, the Court finds service of the supplement in the manner of a summons to Shelly Smith is not necessary under Prob C §851(a) and California Rule of Court (CRC) Rule 7.53(b). Prob C §851(a) only discusses service of the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition and CRC Rule 7.53(b) only says that a supplement must be “served.” Ms. Smith was served by mail with the supplement on April 8, 2026. Also, the supplement simply removes certain assets from the petition. The Court will not require additional service of the supplement to Shelly Smith.

 

  1. Matter of the Auderiah Alvarez Supplemental Needs Trust
    26PR00043
    Petition for Order Directing Establishment of Supplemental Needs Trust, Expanding Trust Investment Authority, Authorizing Vehicle Purchase and Approving Attorney’s Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED without prejudice. This Court does not have jurisdiction to establish the trust or make other orders with respect to the money at issue here because jurisdiction was not transferred to this Court by the federal court that issued the order for minor’s compromise and directed the funds be paid to a special needs trust. California Probate Code §3612(a). While the federal court could have transferred jurisdiction to this Court under California Probate Code §3604(a)(1), there is no indication this has been done. The federal court’s order that the settlement proceeds be paid to a special needs trust or minor’s trust is the type of order contemplated by California Probate Code §3611(c). Therefore, California Probate Code §3604(a)(2) is not applicable, and, pursuant to California Probate Code §3604(a)(1), the federal court has jurisdiction to review and approve the terms of the trust, and the special needs trust is subject to the federal court’s continuing jurisdiction.

 

  1. Matter of The Stuart Kirk Laurie Living Trust
    26PR00067
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to timely serve code compliant notice to all necessary people and file updated proof(s) of service. The petition reveals that the settlor refinanced the subject real estate. As stated in the probate examiner notes posted March 24, 2026, if the property is encumbered the interest holder is entitled to notice pursuant to California Probate Code §851(a)(2). The petitioner should note that California Probate Code §851(a) requires service of the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition in the manner provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §413.10 et seq. (i.e. in the manner of a summons.) Also, the proof of service by mail filed April 7, 2026 shows service as of April 7, 2026 but the date of the signature is February 7, 2026.

If there is no third party lender entitled to notice, petitioner may file a verified supplement to this effect, as well as an amended proof of service, and request to appear for the purpose of presenting both to the court.  Once the procedural issues are cleared, and in the absence of an objection, the Court is inclined to grant the petition.

 

***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?