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 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

 Honorable Jennifer V. Dollard
July 03, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 

  1. Matter of William H. Ator, Celia P. Ator Trust
    24PR01054
    Petition  for Order Confirming Certain Assets are Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: Per the parties’ recently filed statements of issues, discovery is ongoing and the parties desire additional time to work towards resolution. Both parties have indicated some willingness to engage in alternative dispute resolution. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to September 19, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. 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. Any request for a Breslin mediation order must be by noticed motion.  Any such motion must also address the requirement of the trust to participate in arbitration for particular disputes, including distribution amounts.

The Court’s February 28, 2025, and May 16, 2025, ruling directed the petitioners to serve and file a verified supplement addressing various issues. The Court has reviewed the petitioners’ explanations contained in the June 27, 2025, supplement and finds they address all issues but one; the question of whether any portion of the trust became irrevocable at the death of the first settlor to die.  Petitioners do point to the language in Article I titled “Recitals” of the Trust, that the earlier Trust executed on December 30, 1997, as amended on August 18, 2008, “reserved to” Decedent “the right and power to make amendments to said trust.”  Whether this sufficiently establishes the ability to amend the entirety of the prior trust is considered by the Court to be an open question. But if this question becomes material, it is likely to place the burden on the party claiming an inability to amend the entire prior trust to prove the proposition, given this language.

 

  1. Matter of William P. Watson Trust
    24PR01055
    Petition for Order Confirming Certain Assets are Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: This matter was previously CONTINUED to September 19, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. This hearing is DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Matter of the Lyndell Mack Boyd & Patricia Y. Boyd Revocable Trust Dated December 11, 1997 as Restated July 22, 2010
    25PR00088
    Petition to Determine Validity of Purported Trust Amendment and for Removal of Trustee and Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  Because there seems to be some sort of dispute about whether the parties will or will not participate in mediation, the Court will set this matter for trial.    However, the Court intends to set this for a trial date in early 2026 to allow time for discovery and possible alternative dispute resolution prior to the need to begin trial preparation. The parties should be prepared with calendar availability.  The parties agree on a 5-7 day time estimate. 

The Court also wishes to discuss with the parties the request to suspend the respondent as trustee of the survivor’s trust and as co-trustee of the bypass trust forthwith, and to appoint a professional fiduciary for both the survivor’s trust and the bypass trust.  Email correspondence attached to petitioners’ counsel’s declaration indicates there is an agreement not to request this so long as respondent does not take certain action, such as selling real property.  Counsel also states there is some doubt about the availability of a professional fiduciary willing to accept appointment and pursue subdivision of the land and also address the water issues through a well sharing agreement.  The email is dated 6/24/25.  What changed in so short a time that some additional communication cannot address?  The Court notes that there is presently no individual nominated to serve and bond is not addressed.  The Court also questions its ability to give weight to the evidentiary declarations filed on June 26, 2025.  When was the respondent to have an opportunity to respond to them?  Don’t they raise factual issues, assuming there is a disagreement? The Court is inclined to find there is not presently any substantial risk that trust property or the interests of a beneficiary may suffer loss or injury pending a decision on a petition for removal of a trustee. California Probate Code §15642(e).  However, there is one item that does give the Court pause; the failure of the respondent to notify the petitioners that they were the co-trustees of the bypass trust until after the litigation was initiated.  This is undisputed.  This could form a basis for the Court to consider suspension.  If respondent’s explanation is that she simply did not understand the trust document, this reflects a sufficient lack of sophistication or basic competence to perform even the basic duties of a trustee and could establish a basis to suspend her.  An explanation that the experienced estate planning lawyer who drafted the document did not understand what it said in this regard, is not credible.  The Court is also concerned about the co-mingling of the financial accounts for the bypass and survivor’s trusts into a single survivor’s trust financial account.  This action is also undisputed and again reflects either, at worst, on the respondent’s integrity, or at best, her competence to act as a trustee.  And it is not this Court’s experience that even the most minimally competent estate planning lawyer would recommend commingling, let alone an experienced one, particularly where such efforts were taken to segregate the assets into the separate trusts.  The parties should be prepared to discuss, and to offer nominees for a successor interim trustee should the court suspend respondent.  It is also the Court’s view that any successor interim trustee, if appointed, should be appointed for both the bypass trust and the survivor’s trust, in order to facilitate efficient administration.  As to the desire to “make money” by subdividing the land or creating a water sharing agreement, this would result in a delay in the administration of the trust and would require cooperation of the parties.  The Court predicts both would be problematic and expresses doubts about this being a reasonable course by any trustee.

The Court notes the Request for Judicial Notice filed by the petitioners on June 26, 2025 is incomplete.  It indicates that the subject document is attached but nothing is attached. The request is denied.

As to the respondent’s statement of issues, at paragraph 4 (related to sale of trust real property) and paragraph 5 (related to various other actions proposed by the trustee), respondent seeks instructions. As respondent’s counsel acknowledges, the statement of issues is not the appropriate means of seeking instructions as to these issues, and the Court will not reach these issues based only on their being raised in the statement of issues.  However, to the extent the parties agree the supplement to the petition filed 3/11/25 sufficiently covers these topics in connection with the notice of proposed actions, they are before the Court (the Court did not do a point-by-point comparison).  If they do not agree, a petition for instructions must be filed to place them before the Court.  The Court anticipates the requests for instructions are likely to involve contested material facts, in any event.

 

  1. Matter of Judith Farwell Brown Trust
    25PR00112
    Petition (1) to Remove Co-Trustee; (2) to Confirm Petitioner as Sole Trustee; (3) to Compel Co-Trustee to Account; (4) for Surcharge of the Co-Trustee

Tentative Ruling:  The Court declines to issue a finding at this time that petitioner, John Gary Farwell, is a co-trustee with the objector, Thomas Edwin Farwell, of the Judith Farwell Brown Trust. While both are so designated by the Trust at Art. IX(A), the question of whether petitioner voluntarily abdicated his duties or was wrongly excluded from them, is contested.  This litigation was filed three years after the settlor died.  Certainly, the petitioner must have been aware for years that an estate existed.  Beyond that, the facts are murky.  Even were the petitioner to convince the Court otherwise, the Court anticipates the parties would face significant difficulties acting as equal co-trustees required to agree on actions necessary to administer the trust.  Of course, the Court would readily appoint a professional fiduciary to act as successor trustee, should the parties agree. 

The Court does order the objector to account to petitioner.  A code compliant accounting must be produced to petitioner within 90 days of this hearing, or as otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing.  A copy need not be filed with the Court.

The Court acknowledges that the objector would like to set this matter for trial. However, in light of the order to account, and the petitioner’s request for a continuance of 90 days to allow for additional meet and confer regarding resolution, the Court is not inclined to set this matter for trial at this time. This matter is CONTINUED to September 26, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. As this is a contested matter, the parties are ordered to continue their meet and confer efforts in compliance with local rules 6.2.F.2 and file updated statements of issues in compliance with local rules 6.2.F.3 at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing date.

 

  1. 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 September 19, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the parties additional time to finalize settlement. 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.

If a final order approving a settlement of the entire action is signed prior to the hearing set for 7/3/25, the order continuing this matter will be vacated as the case will be concluded.

 

***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?