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 23 “Zoom” Online

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1608254529
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 825 4529
• And Password: 611386

To Join Department 23 “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 23:

• 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 Rodriguez Family Revocable Trust
   23PR00264
   Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The only written evidence presented in support of the Petition is settlor’s pour-over will, which leaves all the of the settlor’s property to the trust. While Petitioner does allege that the settlor intended the property to be trust property at paragraph nine of the petition, no signed writing memorializing the transfer of this real property to the trust is presented (See California Probate Code §15206) other than the pour-over will.  The real property at issue was not owned by the settlor at the time the trust and will were created.  Thus the Court cannot say that the execution of the pour-over will in this case acted to create a trust in the real property.

Where a pour-over will gives property to a trust, and a trust has not otherwise been created as to the property, the property is subject to probate administration. Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 743-744. Therefore, the Petition is DENIED.

 

2. Matter of Linda L. Contreras Trust
   23PR00318
   Petition by Beneficiary to Compel Account

Tentative Ruling: The Petition is GRANTED in part. Thomas C. Burkard, III shall deliver a code-compliant accounting to petitioner by July 29, 2024.  Regarding the request for costs of suit, petitioner shall be entitled to recover costs associated with the Petition, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1032(b), in an amount to be determined pursuant to a memorandum of costs submitted to this Court, which shall be subject to a motion to tax.

Regarding attorney’s fees, they are recoverable as litigation costs only when the party entitled to costs has a legal basis, independent of the cost statutes and grounded in an agreement, statute, or other law, upon which to claim recovery of attorney fees. Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606. No legal basis for the recovery of attorney’s fees is presented in the Petition. If Petitioner wishes to recover attorney’s fees, she should file and serve a noticed motion presenting legal argument and relevant evidence regarding this issue.

The Court will sign the proposed order lodged November 21, 2023, but will strike proposed orders relating to awards of fees and costs, without prejudice as stated above.

 

3. Matter of Robert A. Garcia Trust
   24PR00050
   Petition for Instructions

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 9, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23 for the reasons set forth below.

On March 19, 2024, Respondent-Trustee Mary A. Garcia filed a motion for transfer of this proceeding to Santa Clara County. The Court is not inclined to address the substance of this petition until after rendering a decision on said motion, and only if the Court concludes that Sonoma County is the appropriate venue for this proceeding. If the proceeding is transferred to Santa Clara County, the continued hearing date will be dropped from calendar.

If the Court does decide that Sonoma County is the appropriate venue for this proceeding, it requires Petitioner to cure the defects listed below.

1. Use of the DE-115 form is mandatory in the context of a California Probate Code §850 petition. Here, Petitioner has used the DE-120 form, the wrong form. Petitioner’s notice of hearing also fails to comply with California Probate Code (“Prob C) §851(c)(1) in that there is no description of the property. Furthermore, there is no proof of service in the file showing service of the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition, as required by Prob C §§17203(a) and 851(a). The proof of personal service to Mary. A. Garcia filed January 30, 2024, does not list the correct documents. Petitioner is required to timely serve a code-compliant notice of hearing (for the continued hearing date) and copy of the petition to all necessary parties in advance of the continued hearing date, and file updated proof(s) of service.
2. The Petition fails to comply with California Probate Code §17201 as it does not state the names and addresses of each person entitled to notice. Petitioner must file a verified supplement curing this defect at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing date.
3. The title of the petition and the notice of hearing fail to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court rules 7.102 and 7.50. The title of the petition is merely “Petition for Instructions.” However, in addition to various instructions to the trustee, the petition seeks relief from breach of trust by surcharge and removal of the trustee, and return of property to the trust pursuant to Prob C §850 et seq. Petitioner must cure this defect (as to both the petition and the notice of hearing) in advance of the continued hearing date.

    

4. Matter of Dorothy Langley Trust
   24PR00080
   Petition to Disinherit Trustee, Corinne Muelrath of the Dorothy Langley Agreeable Trust, and Remove as Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The Petition to Disinherit Trustee, Corinne Muelrath of the Dorothy Langley Agreeable Trust, and Remove as Trustee, filed by Carolyn Langley (“Carolyn”) on January 29, 2024, is DENIED. The Court finds that Carolyn lacks standing to bring this petition pursuant to California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §§24(c) and 17200(a).

This is a petition concerning the internal affairs of a trust. Pursuant to Prob C §17200, only a trustee or a beneficiary may petition the Court regarding the internal affairs of a trust. Prob C §17200(a). A beneficiary of a trust is defined as a person who has any present or future interest vested or contingent. Prob C §24(c).

Here, the trust instrument provides for a distribution of 2/9 interest in 1464 Middle Two Rock Road, Petaluma, CA (the “Property”) to Carolyn. However, per the December 13, 2023, ruling of the Honorable Judge Patrick Broderick in case SCV272389, the Property is not currently held in the trust. Therefore, while Carolyn may have some interest in the Property, this interest does not constitute a beneficial interest in the trust res. Further, Per Article III of the trust, Carolyn, as a child of the settlor, is a beneficiary of the remaining balance of the trust estate, if any. Per paragraph 2 of Corrine Muelrath’s February 27, 2024, objection to the petition, the trust has no assets. While Petitioner asserts the Property is a trust asset – it is not – she does not assert the trust has any other assets. Therefore, Carolyn has not established that she is a beneficiary of the trust as defined by Prob C §24(c) and the Court finds she lacks standing to bring this petition.

The Court notes that of the 13 named beneficiaries, only one, Corinne Muelrath, has been served. As the Court has denied the petition based on standing, no continuance is necessary to address the service defect.  Nor does the Court further analyze other issues raised by the petition, such as the no contest clause.

 

5.  Matter of Joseph R. Tallariti, Marie A. Tallariti Trust
   24PR00082
   Verified Petition to Remove Trustee and Appoint Professional Fiduciary as Trustee, and Compel Accounting, Alternatively, to Compel Distribution in Accordance with the Terms of the Trust, and for Attorney's Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: DISCLOSURE:  The Court discloses that counsel for the Petitioner, John Loveman, was previously employed by the court as a research attorney and previously provided research support for this judicial officer.  While the Court makes this disclosure, it finds no basis on which to recuse.  If any party wishes to be heard, or to request more information on the disclosure, they should request to appear for that purpose.

This matter is CONTINUED to July 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23 to allow the parties an opportunity to cure the defects listed below. Also, as this is now a contested matter, the parties must meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3 at least seven (7) court days prior to continued hearing date.

The petition does not state the names and addresses of each person entitled to notice as required by California Probate Code §17201. Petitioner must serve and file a verified supplement curing this defect at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing date.

To the extent Randall Tallariti (“Randall”) asserts any objections regarding notice or service, the Court finds them to be waived by his general appearance in this matter via the objections and oppositions filed April 11, 2024, as Randall has not confined his participation in the action to objection to lack of jurisdiction over himself. See Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 52.

The proof of service for Randall’s objections and oppositions fails to indicate service to Petitioner Rick Tallariti (“Rick”) through counsel or otherwise. While the Court acknowledges that Randall may not know Rick’s whereabouts, Randall is ordered to serve a copy of the opposition to Rick’s counsel on or before April 29, 2024. Service may be by mail. An updated proof of service showing service to Rick’s counsel must be filed. Counsel for Rick may waive this requirement in writing.

 

6. Matter of Cruz Hernandez SNT
   SPR82937
   Sixth Account and Report of Trustee and Approval to Pay Compensation to Trustee's Attorneys

Tentative Ruling: The Petition is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 24, 2024.

The Probate Court’s review of this Special Needs Trust DOES NOT Guarantee Medi-Cal Eligibility or any other Public Benefits provided by any governmental entity. The Probate Court DOES NOT Guarantee that all Federal and State requirement have been met.

 

7. Matter of the Mazzaferri Trust
   SPR84785
   Petition to Modify Bypass Trust to Name Co-trustee/Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: Per the proof of service by mail filed March 26, 2024, service was completed on March 24, 2024. California Probate Code §17203 requires the notice of hearing to be served at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Service was not timely here. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to August 2, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23. Petitioner is ordered to provide code-compliant notice of the continued hearing date to all necessary parties.

The Court is aware that Ronald Mazzaferro has filed a response to the Petition.  The Court’s initial review of the response reveals that the first issue raised therein amounts to a motion to disqualify Petitioner’s counsel.  Such affirmative relief raised by the response is inappropriate in light of the vexatious litigant pre-filing order applicable to Mr. Mazzaferro.  As the Court declines to sift through the entirety of the 61-page response to determine what other affirmative relief may be inappropriately raised, the Court strikes the document on its own motion in its entirety as not in conformity with the law applicable to vexatious litigants. 

As new service is required in connection with the new hearing date, the time in which to object has not closed and shall be governed by the next hearing date.

However, the Court also notes that there is presently an active criminal warrant for the arrest of Ronald Mazzaferro for allegedly absconding during his trial on charges of violation of an elder abuse restraining order issued by the Superior Court.  The protected party in that case is the same as the Petitioner in this case.  The Court will not entertain any filings from Mr. Mazzaferro while the warrant is active.  He must clear that warrant in the criminal court prior to any further filings in this matter being considered.  See Polanski v. Superior Court, (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 507, 531.

If any party wishes to make an appearance in this matter at the presently scheduled hearing, they must do so in person.  The ability to appear by phone or Zoom is denied.

 

8. Matter of Keana Pulido Special Needs Trust
   SPR094047
   Petition to Approve Third and Final Account and Report of Trustee From 10/01/2021 through 09/30/2023, to Confirm Resignation of Trustee and to Appoint Successor Trustee, To Approve Transfer of Venue, and to Approve Trustee’s and Attorney's Fees

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 9, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23. The reason for the continuance is to allow petitioner an opportunity to cure the defects mentioned below.

Accountings for this trust must comply with California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §2620 et seq. Pursuant to Prob C §2620(c)(2), all account statements showing the account balance as of the closing date of the accounting period of the court accounting are required. Here, no statements are filed. Paragraph 10 of the petition indicates the statements were filed with the petition, but the court does not find them in its file. The statements must be filed at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

Regarding the request for attorney’s fees, counsel has submitted a declaration that, at paragraph 3, indicates that a statement of services is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration. However, no such statement is attached. The attachment must be filed at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

The Court directs counsel’s attention to Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8.A, which requires all petitions filed pursuant to Division 9 of the Probate Code to include a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, etc. While the Court has referred to a copy of the trust it located in its files, counsel should ensure that all future filings comply with this rule.

The Probate Court’s review of this Special Needs Trust DOES NOT Guarantee Medi-Cal Eligibility or any other Public Benefits provided by any governmental entity. The Probate Court DOES NOT Guarantee that all Federal and State requirement have been met.

 

9. Matter of Henry J. LaFranchi Trust dated February 21, 1991
   SPR097112
   Petition for: (1) Removal and Surcharge of Trustee; (2) Suspension of Trustee's Powers Pending Removal; (3) Appointment of Successor Trustee; And (4) Compelling Trustee to Account

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to July 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23. Petitioner indicates in his April 10, 2024 statement of issues that the parties are continuing to work towards resolution and are planning to attend mediation in June 2024. This continuance is, in part, for the purpose of allowing the parties to participate in mediation.

This continuance is also for the purpose of allowing Cheryl LaFranchi to file a written objection or response. Cheryl LaFranchi is hereby required to serve and file an objection or response to the petition on or before July 19, 2024, otherwise, any objections or responses are waived. California Rules of Court rule 7.801.

 

10. Matter of the Ranch Trust
    SPR098021
    Petition for: (1) Removal and Surcharge of Trustee; (2) Suspension of Trustee's Powers Pending Removal; (3) Appointment of Successor Trustee; And (4) Compelling Trustee to Account

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to July 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23. Petitioner indicates in his April 10, 2024, statement of issues that the parties are continuing to work towards resolution and are planning to attend mediation in June 2024. This continuance is, in part, for the purpose of allowing the parties to participate in mediation.

This continuance is also for the purpose of allowing Cheryl LaFranchi to file a written objection or response. Cheryl LaFranchi is hereby required to serve and file an objection or response to the petition on or before July 19, 2024, otherwise, any objections or responses are waived. California Rules of Court rule 7.801.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***