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 Spencer Family Trust
   24PR00260
   Petition for Immediate Suspension of Trustee, for Removal of Trustee, For Accounting and Surcharge, for Order Directing Completion of Parent-Child Reassessment Exclusion Form

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED for trial setting. Counsel for the parties should be prepared to discuss trial availability and estimates for length of trial.
 

2. Matter  of Spencer Family Trust
   24PR00260
   Petition to Recognize and Confirm Valid Trust Amendment and Restatement of Shirley M. Spencer, for Finding of Elder Abuse, Fraud and for an Order Determining Trust Distribution and Probate 259 Finding

Tentative Ruling: The Court STRIKES the amended petition filed May 14, 2025, in its entirety pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §436(b). Oppositions were filed on May 14, 2025. Subsequently (i.e. later in the day on May 14, 2025) the petitioner filed an amended petition, which includes subtle but material changes. Pursuant to CCP §472(a) the amended petition is not allowed (absent leave of the Court) because it was filed after the oppositions to the original petition. Also, there is no new notice of hearing for the amended petition, in violation of California Rule of Court Rule 7.53(a). A noticed motion for leave to amend will be required if the petitioner wishes to amend his petition now that responsive pleadings have been filed. As the amended petition is stricken, the original petition is the operative pleading here. An amended pleading supersedes the original. Spooner v. Cady (Cal. 1894) 36 P. 104, 105. An amended pleading which is stricken out does not supersede the original. Spooner v. Cady (Cal. 1894) 36 P. 104, 105.

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

The petition is DENIED as to proposed orders number one (1) and number two (2). The petitioner fails to present any legal basis for reopening case SPR096754 and granting the modification petition in that matter. Furthermore, the Court finds that any contest to the trust is time-barred by California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §16061.8 given the service of the trustee’s Prob C §16061.7 notice in March of 2024. The petition is time-barred to the extent it contests the trust.

The Court also finds that the modification petition does not constitute a valid amendment to the trust. The surviving settlor did not have the authority to amend the entire trust, but only had authority to amend Trust A. Trust B was irrevocable at the deceased settlor’s death. As the proposed modification seeks to reform the entire trust, the surviving settlor did not have the authority to unilaterally make such a modification/amendment. Also, as the petition for modification seeks to modify the entire trust, not just Trust A, the petition for modification does not evidence the settlor’s intent regarding modification of Trust A alone. There is no indication that the settlor would want the terms of the proposed modified trust to control Trust A alone. Also, neither the modification petition nor the instant petition asks the Court to apply the terms of the proposed modification to Trust A alone.

To the extent the petitioner asserts that the modification petition was not prosecuted due to the commission of elder abuse, this assertion can be litigated as part of the elder abuse claims.

As to proposed orders three (3) and four (4), the petition is CONTINUED to August 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. The petitioner asserts elder abuse claims against Katherine Ann Johnson and Brian Joseph Spencer and asks that they be deemed to have predeceased the settlor pursuant to California Probate Code §259. As the elder abuse claims are civil claims brought pursuant the California Welfare and Institutions Code, service in the manner of a summons (i.e. per California Code of Civil Procedure §413.10 et. seq.) to Katherine Ann Johnson and Brian Joseph Spencer is necessary here. While Brian Joseph Spencer has appeared to contest the petition, Katherine Ann Johnson has not, and she has not been served in the manner of a summons. Code compliant service to Katherine Ann Johnson will be required. Given the heightened protections of the Elder Abuse Act, parties should not be given fewer rights than those granted to litigants in other civil proceedings. Conservatorship of Kayle (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.

Furthermore, beneficiary Brian Joseph Spencer asserts the petitioner lacks standing to bring the elder abuse claims. The Court is inclined to decide the standing issue first, after each party has a chance to argue their respective positions on the standing issue. As this matter is contested, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rules 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues in compliance with local rules 6.2.F.3. The statements of issues must address the parties’ positions as to whether the standing issue can be decided on the papers, or whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the parties agree the standing issue can be decided on the papers, the Court will set a briefing schedule at the next hearing. Otherwise, if necessary, the Court will set an evidentiary hearing on the standing issue at the next hearing.

Counsel for Brian Spencer is ordered to lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.
 

3. Matter of Mary Lango Trust
   24PR00815
   Amended Petition for an Order to Invalidate Trust

Tentative Ruling: Per the joint statement of issues filed May 20, 2025, the parties have made progress narrowing the issues but require additional time to work towards resolution. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to the Case Management Conference calendar on September 4, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12. As this is 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 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3.
 

4. Matter of the John A. and Geraldine P. Holt Family Trust
   24PR00168
   Petition for Modification of Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 for the reason set forth below.

On March 18, 2025, John A. Holt, through is Guardian Ad Litem Scott Newell, and Karen Elizabeth Holt, trustee, filed the Petition for Modification of Trust. On May 23, 2025, Gregory Holt filed objections 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 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3.

5. Matter of Ditto Trust
   25PR00270
   Petition for Order Confirming Trustee and Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 11, 2025.
 

6. Matter of James E Cook, Margaret C Cook Trust
   25PR00281
   Petition to Appoint Fiduciary as Successor Trustee; for Accounting; for Surcharge Against June F. Cook and Maureen E. Cline for Payment of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to address the issues noted below.

James P. Cook, a trust beneficiary, is entitled to notice pursuant to Prob C §17203(a)(2). There is no proof of service to James P. Cook in the Court’s file. The petitioner is ordered to timely serve code compliant notice of the continued hearing date to James P. Cook.

The proposed successor trustee is licensed professional fiduciary Connis Aust. No written acceptance of the trust is presented, and there is no allegation that Connis Aust has accepted the trust. The Court will not appoint Connis Aust as trustee without an affirmative indication that she has agreed to serve.
 

7. Matter of The Gerwitz Revocable Living Trust
   25PR00295
   Petition for Order Confirming Assets in Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 17, 2025.

The Court directs the counsel’s attention to California Rule of Court rule 1.201(a), which states in part: “If financial account numbers are required in a pleading or other paper filed in the public file, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used.” Any future filings should comply with this rule.
 

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. 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. There has been no status update since February 4, 2025.

The Court considered requiring appearances for this hearing to determine the status of the case. However, the Court also understands that the petitioner has had trouble obtaining information from the respondent-trustee, and that this may be impeding their ability to prove damages. Under the circumstances, the Court will continue the hearing to allow the petitioner another opportunity to comply with the Court’s November 1, 2024, ruling and to address the lack of response from the respondent-trustee. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to August 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12.

9. Matter of Amanuel Hagos Special Needs Trust
   SPR097336
   Petition  for Order Approving Second Accounting and Report and Approval for Trustee Fees

Tentative Ruling: There is no proof of service in the Court’s file. This matter is CONTINUED to August 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to service code compliant notice to all necessary parties and file proof(s) of service.

The petitioner should note that the Court will require code compliant notice, and to the extent the petitioner intends to utilize electronic service, the Court requires strict compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6 and California Rules of Court Rule 2.251.

***End of Tentative Rulings***