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 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 2021 Elizabeth Woodul Hays Revocable Living Trust dated March 15, 2021
   24PR00668
   Second Amended Petition for Order Confirming Asset in Trust, Instructions Determining Terms of Trust and Ascertaining Beneficiaries of Trust

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely.

The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged November 27, 2024.

 

2. Matter of Roy George Madden, Marian Louise Madden Trust
   24PR00803
   Petition for Trust Accounting, Instructions, and Removal of Trustee

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely.

The petition is DENIED in part and CONTINUED in part, as set forth below.

The request for an order compelling an accounting is DENIED. An accounting was delivered to the beneficiaries within the last six months and has been filed for the approval of this Court in the Matter of the Madden Family Trust of 1991(24PR00196.) See California Probate Code §§16062, 17200(b)(7)(C). The request for an accounting is moot.

The Court rules that Richard Edward Madden is the sole successor trustee. The trust provides the settlor with a special power to remove and replace trustees. Trust Art. Three sec. 3.2(a). The terms providing for a special power to remove the trustee uses “Trustor” (i.e. singular.) Therefore, the 10^th trust amendment, at Art. “FOURTH” effectively changes the trustee of all trusts to Richard Edward Madden.

The Court rules that the request that the trustee provide all superseded trust amendments is moot.  Per the correspondence attached to the trustee’s petition filed February 4, 2025, these were provided on July 23, 2024.  See Exhibit F to declaration of Mark L. Gladden filed February 4, 2025. 

 The balance of the petition is CONTINUED to April 18, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to trail the determination of the Petition for Instructions re: the No Contest Clause and, if that petition is not dispositive, the challenge to the accounting in 24PR00196. The petitioners are ORDERED to timely serve code compliant notice of the continued hearing date to all trust beneficiaries. All trust beneficiaries are entitled to notice of this petition. California Probate Code §17203(a)(2). The Court only finds proof of service to Richard Edward Madden in its file. Numerous trust beneficiaries have not been served.

Roy Paul Madden and Shellie Louise Marcus filed their Petition for Trust Accounting, Instructions, and Removal of Trustee on August 27, 2024. On February 4, 2025, Richard Edward Madden filed his response and objections to said petition. As this is now a contested matter, the parties are also ORDERED on the remaining issues 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.

Furthermore, consistent with this Court’s January 31, 2025 ruling in the Matter of the Madden Family Trust of 1991(24PR00196,) that matter is ordered related to this matter.

Counsel for the petitioners is ORDERED to lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

 

3. Matter of Chryso V. Adams Revocable Trust Dated August 28, 1996
   24PR00965
   Petition to Instruct Trustee

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely.

The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged October 23, 2024.  Petitioner shall bear their own costs and fees.

 

4. Matter of the McCabe Family Trust
   24PR00982
   Petition Concerning the Internal Affairs of Trust and for Information Related to Trust

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely.

The petition is DENIED without prejudice.  The Court finds insufficient evidence that any trust has become irrevocable (such as by the incapacity or death of the settlor).
 

5. Matter of Sue Carolyn Thollaug, Kenneth Frederick Thollaug Trust
   24PR00993
   Petition for Modification of Trust B

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely. 

The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 27, 2025.
 

6. Matter  of Bartow Family Trust
   24PR01009
   Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely.

The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged November 7, 2024.
 

7. Matter of Morris 2017 Trust
   24PR01010
   Petition for Court Order to Transfer Assets Held in Settlor’s Name to Settlor’s Trust

Tentative Ruling:

This matter was originally set for hearing in Department 11 but has been moved to Department 12. Department 12 is in close physical proximity to Department 11 (right next door.) The court will direct anyone appearing at Department 11 to go to Department 12. The court will also open a Zoom session for Department 11 and redirect anyone appearing remotely.

The petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below.

As to the LLC interest and the financial accounts, the petition is GRANTED.

As to the real property located at 2817 Hidden Valley Drive, Santa Rosa, CA, the petition is DENIED. A trust in relation to real property generally must be evidenced by a written instrument in order to be valid. Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156, 160. See also California Probate Code §15206. Here, no written instrument establishing a trust in the Hidden Valley property is presented. The settlor’s pour-over will, alone, cannot be a basis for granting the petition. Where a pour-over will gives property to a trust, and the property is not otherwise made part of the trust res, the property cannot be simply transferred to the trust without probate administration. Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 743-744.  The Court also finds a tracing analysis not applicable as the real property subject to this petition was purchased before the sale of the real property then held in trust.  The Petition does reference the preparation of legal documents to change title of the subject real property to the trust that were inadvertently not recorded by the decedent as a result of a sudden medical issue.  If the petitioner believes they can produce such a writing, the Court will reconsider the denial.  The petitioner should request to appear in that case, to discuss with the Court.

Otherwise, the petitioner shall lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

 

8. Matter of the Virginia M. Klein Trust UA dated December 21, 2011, as Amended
   SPR096824
   Petition for Relief from Breach of Trust

Tentative Ruling: The Court’s November 1, 2024 ruling required the petitioner to file and serve a summary of damages requested at least ten (10) days before this hearing. That ruling also required the petitioner to notify all necessary parties of the continued hearing and file a code-compliant Notice of Hearing with Proof of Service. The petitioner has failed to comply with these requirements.  However, the Petitioner did file a status update on February 4, 2025 explaining the current posture of the case.

This matter is CONTINUED to May 30, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity comply with this Court’s November 1, 2024 ruling and address the lack of response from the Respondent.

 

9. 10. & 11. Matter of the Robert L. Herrick and Ann M. Herrick Family Trust
   SPR097669
   Trustee’s Petition For Orders: (1) Determining Violation of, and Enforcing, No Contest Clause; (2) Awarding Attorney Fees and Costs and (3) Authorizing and Approving Allocation of Attorney Fees and Costs to Michael Herrick

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The Court does not find that Michael Herrick (“Michael”) has filed a petition challenging the transfer of trust property on the grounds that it was not the transferor’s property at the time of the transfer. The Court also does not find that the petition otherwise presents a valid basis for determining that the no-contest clauses under the Bypass Trust or the Survivor’s Trust have been violated.

Regarding the request to allocate costs and fees to Michael and/or his subtrust, the Court finds that there are contested material facts related to this issue (e.g. whether Michael acted without reasonable cause and in bad faith.) The Court will allow the presentation of evidence and argument relevant to this issue at trial and will determine the issue after making the necessary factual findings.

Michael’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed January 8, 2025, pertains solely to the issue of the no-contest clause. As this issue is now decided, that motion is DROPPED from calendar as moot.

Michael’s November 6, 2024, filed motion to compel mediation is CONTINUED to the probate law and motion calendar on April 18, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12. All deadlines for service and filing of papers related to that motion will be measured from that date. Michael’s April 25, 2024, filed petition for breach of trust, etc. will trail the determination on the motion to compel mediation.

Counsel for Nancy Thornhill is ORDERED to file an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.
 

12.   Matter of Edgar A. Castellini and Mary M. Castellini Revocable Trust dated May 4, 1981
          SPR097863
          Petition for Accounting and Compelling Redress of Breach of Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to April 18, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. The Court understands that due to the death of one of the parties, finalization of the settlement has been delayed. Absent any update from the parties, the Court will require appearances at the next hearing if the matter has not resolved. The Court notes that it will determine a petition for appointment of successor trustee as a drop-off ex parte application where all parties consent and waive notice. See local rule 6.2.G.b.1.xii.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and, if the matter has not fully resolved prior to the next hearing, to file updated statements of issues in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

The Court also notes that the petition remains unverified. Per Petitioner’s December 27, 2023, Statement of Issues, Petitioner planned to file an amended verified petition that would not seek any orders as to the present Respondent R. James Symons. No such amended petition has been filed. If the case has not fully resolved prior to the next hearing, the petitioner’s statement of issues should address these issues.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***