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
April 18, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Matter of Else Storm Rodrigues Trust
    23PR00337
    Petition for Confirmation and Conveyance of Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof. Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548, 556 (citing California Evidence Code §662.) Sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §5302(a). The documents attached to the petition show the accounts were titled to Else Storm Rodrigues (the “settlor”) or Lorena K. Fisher (“Lorena”) as joint owners. Thus, the accounts passed to Lorena K. Fisher at the settlor’s death pursuant to Prob C §5302(a). The petitioner presents no clear and convincing evidence that the settlor intended to pass the accounts in any other way.  The Court does not need to rely on the information provided in the objection and, accordingly, finds no triable issues of fact are raised.

The Court acknowledges the letter of Katherine D. Siri, Esq. dated February 9, 2019 (“attorney’s letter”) which states the settlor’s personal property was transferred to the trust by assignment executed October 9, 2007. The Court notes no assignment of assets is presented in the papers. The Court does not find that the reference to an assignment of personal property in the attorney’s letter can sustain the petition. Whether the assignment would apply to the assets at issue here depends on the terms of the assignment. The terms of the assignment cannot be determined by the attorney’s letter. Furthermore, the attorney’s letter indicates the assignment of personal property was executed in 2007. The settlor made Lorena the joint owner of the accounts in 2011. The most recent manifestation of the settlor’s intent shows the settlor intended to hold the accounts in joint ownership with Lorena, such that the accounts would pass to Lorena by her right of survivorship. The attorney’s letter does not contain clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.

The petitioner argues that Trust Article Two section 2.2 supports the petition. That section indicates that the titling of any account in the name of the trustee, as trustee of the trust, shall be deemed to be a transfer to the trust. However, the accounts at issue here are not titled to the trustee of the trust. Property held in the name of the settlor as an individual or in the name of Lorena as an individual is not automatically rendered trust property pursuant to Trust Article 2.2. Holding property as the trustee of a trust is different than holding property as an individual, even where the trustee and the individual are the same person. There is no evidence that the settlor transferred the accounts to herself or another person as trustee such that the accounts were held in trust pursuant to Prob C §15200. Therefore, the petitioner’s arguments regarding Trust Article Five section 5.4 also fail.

The petitioner argues the settlor’s pour-over will, which passes the residue of the settlor’s estate to the trust, shows that the accounts are held in trust. However, the accounts are not subject to the terms of the settlor’s will because they are not considered part of her estate. See Prob C §§13050(a)(2), 7001. The terms of the will passing the residue of the settlor’s estate to the trust are not applicable.

The terms of a will can be relied upon in ascertaining the settlor’s intent. Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 740–741, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 23, 2019). However, the settlor’s will contains no specific reference to the accounts at issue, and does not otherwise constitute clear and convincing evidence of an intent to pass the accounts in a manner other than by the right of survivorship of the joint owner. The cases of Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730 and Araiza v. Younkin (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1120 are distinguishable here, as both of those cases involved expressions of intent that referred to the accounts at issue and directed that the accounts pass to persons other than the joint account holder or pay on death beneficiary. Here, the Court finds no clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent to pass the accounts in a manner other than directly to the joint account holder pursuant to Prob C §5302(a).

As Lorena is the rightful owner of the accounts by right of survivorship, the Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s arguments that Lorena has committed malfeasance (be it breach of trust or otherwise) by taking the accounts for her own. As the accounts are not part of the trust estate, Lorena is not required to include them in the forthcoming accounting.

Finally, as was stated in this Court’s March 21, 2025 ruling, the Court acknowledges the petitioner’s continued assertion that a DPOA accounting is required, and this issue is CONTINUED to June 20, 2025. Whether the respondent ever served as DPOA for the decedent is a disputed material fact that must be decided before the Court can determine whether a DPOA accounting is due to the petitioner, and this Court will set this issue for evidentiary hearing if the parties wish to do so at the time of the next hearing and the Court determines it is necessary.

 

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

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to July 3, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to cure the notice/service defects noted below and to file a complete copy of the trust, as noted below.

The assets at issue in this Heggstad petition are a BMO Account and an I-Bond Account. The entities in possession of these assets have not been served in the manner required by California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §851(a)(2). Petitioner should note that Prob C §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.) Service by mail alone is not sufficient.

Also, The DE-115 notice of hearing form filed March 14, 2025 does not list the property at issue in this petition, as required by Prob C §851(c)(1).

The petitioner must timely serve code-compliant notice of the continued hearing and a copy of the petition to the entities in possession of the assets at issue. The Court acknowledges that the trust beneficiaries have waived notice.

The Court also notes the petition states two trust amendments are attached to the petition as part of Exhibit A, but the Court does not find said amendments included in Exhibit A. The petitioner must file a complete copy of the trust agreement including all amendments at least 10 days in advance of the continued hearing date.

 

  1. Matter of Maud Trachtenberg
    24PR01052
    Verified Petition to Invalidate Trust and Related Estate Plan Documents Based on Lack of Capacity and Undue Influence; for Cancellation or Transfer of Trust Property; for Wrongful Concealment; for Elder Abuse; for Constructive Trust; for Declaratory Relief; for Compensatory and Punitive Damages; for Injunctive Relief; and For Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: The Court has signed the proposed order submitted by drop-off ex parte application on April 15, 2025. By agreement of the parties, all issues not resolved by said order are CONTINUED to July 18, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12.

 

  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: This matter is CONTINUED to July 3, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 for the reason set forth below.

On February 5, 2025, John Farwell filed his 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. On April 15, 2025, Thomas Farwell filed his objection to said petition. As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ordered to 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 in advance of the continued hearing date.

 

  1. Matter of Suzanne de Kozan Special Needs Trust
    SPR095103
    Petition for Settlement of Account and Report for the Period of May 1, 2023 through November 13, 2024; Request for Trustee Fees and Attorney Fees; and Waiver of Further Accountings/Fee Requests

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED, but an updated proposed order is required. Prayers nine and ten are not reflected in the proposed order. The Court is inclined to allow administration to proceed without further court supervision, given the trustee intends to distribute all remaining trust assets outright to the remainder beneficiary. However, the Court will require counsel to submit an updated proposed order incorporating prayers nine and ten.

 

  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 July 3, 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.

The Court also notes that the petition remains unverified in violation of California Probate Code §1021(a)(1). The petitioner’s April 9, 2025 statement of issues indicates an intent to file a verification, but it has not been filed.

 

 

***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?