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

Hon. William Barry on behalf of Hon. Jennifer V. Dollard
March 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Matter of Andrea Grossman Trust
    24PR00578
    Petition to Invalidate Second Amendment to Trust, Remove Trustee, Compel Production of Original Trust Document, and Seek Damages for Breach of Trust and Elder Abuse

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to May 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12, for the reasons set forth below.

The Court has received no status update from the parties. 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.

Regarding service to Karl Grossman, the Court acknowledges that Karl Grossman is included in the service list attached to the proof of service filed December 16, 2024.

Regarding service to Harry Jones, Attorney Cullen’s declaration filed December 4, 2024, indicates that trust beneficiary Harry Jones is now deceased, but does not address the status of his gift or whether any notice is due to his estate or his heirs. See e.g. California Probate Code §17203(c). If Harry Jones’ interest vested prior to his death, the petitioner should comply with the rules applicable to service on persons whose address is unknown or who are deceased. Failure to file an updated proof of service or other papers addressing this issue at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date may result in additional delays.
 

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

Tentative Ruling: Per the joint statement of issues filed February 24, 2025, the parties have made progress narrowing the issues but require additional time to work towards resolution. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to May 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.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.

 

  1. Matter of Walter Benedetti and Willie Benedetti Trust
    24PR00844
    Petition to Determine Terms of the Walter Benedetti Trust and Willie Benedetti Trust, Identities of Trustees of Said Trusts, Identities of Beneficiaries of the Walter Benedetti Trust, For an Accounting, For Delivery of the Terms of the Walter Benedetti Trust, For Distribution of Certain Assets of the Walter Benedetti Trust, and for Appointment of Petitioners as Trustees of the Walter Benedetti Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to May 16, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to cure the defects noted below. The petitioners are ordered to timely serve code compliant notice of the continued hearing date to all necessary parties in accordance with this ruling.

Per the petition’s caption, the petition is based (at least, in part) on California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §850. Use of the DE-115 notice of hearing form is mandatory in the context of Prob C §850 petitions. California Rules of Court Rule 1.31. No notice of hearing form has been used here. The Court acknowledges there are both Prob C §850 claims and Prob C §17200 claims in the petition but will require use of DE-115 notice of hearing form here. The notice of hearing must include a description of the subject property, as required by Prob C §851(c)(1).

The person allegedly in possession of the property at issue in this Prob C §850 petition is William Utnehmer, Esq., but he has not been served in compliance with Prob C §851(a)(2). The 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.)

This Prob C §850 petition concerns both the Willie W. Benedetti Living Trust and the Walter Benedetti Trust. The petition also includes requests related to the internal affairs of the Walter Benedetti Trust. Therefore, the Court will require code-compliant notice to all beneficiaries of the two trusts pursuant to Prob C §851(b). The petitioners should note that Prob C §851(b) requires service of a copy of the petition and the notice of hearing.

The Court acknowledges that the petitioners do not have a copy of the Walter Benedetti Trust, but also notes that beneficiaries of the Walter Benedetti Trust are named in the petition, but are not served. The petitioners should serve all people they know to be beneficiaries of the Walter Benedetti Trust. Should the petitioners ultimately discover additional beneficiaries (after receiving a copy of the trust or otherwise) those individuals must also receive code-compliant notice of this proceeding. Also, the petitioners assert that they are the sole beneficiaries of the Willie W. Benedetti Living Trust, but there are two other people named in the amended trust as beneficiaries of specific gifts.

If the petitioners intend to utilize electronic service, they should note that the Court will require such service to be made in strict accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6 and California Rules of Court Rule 2.251.

The petitioners are ordered to file a verified supplement, at least seven (7) court days prior to the hearing, that provides the names and addresses of each person entitled to notice of the petition pursuant to Prob C §17201. This supplement shall be served in strict compliance with California Rules of Court Rule 7.53(b).
 

  1. Matter of Marilyn Magliulo Trust
    24PR01113
    Petition for Instructions; For an Accounting; For an Order Removing Trustee and Appointment of an Independent Licensed Fiduciary as Successor Trustee; For Damages and Surcharge for Breach of Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to May 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to timely serve code compliant notice upon all necessary parties.

Louis Magliulo and Michael Magliulo are served by email only and care of counsel only. As neither has appeared in this proceeding while represented by counsel, email service alone is improper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(b)(2) and California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(f)(2). Also, service care of counsel only without any indication of consent to this manner of service is defective pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 7.51(a)(2).
 

  1. Matter of the Marilyn Magliulo Trust December 1998 Trust (Restated July 26, 2018)
    24PR01116
    Petition for Instructions; For an Accounting; For an Order Removing Trustee and Appointment of an Independent Licensed Fiduciary as Successor Trustee; For Damages and Surcharge for Breach of Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to May 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to timely serve code compliant notice upon all necessary parties.

Louis Magliulo and Michael Magliulo are served by email only and care of counsel only. As neither has appeared in this proceeding while represented by counsel, email service alone is improper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(b)(2) and California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(f)(2). Also, service care of counsel only without any indication of consent to this manner of service is defective pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 7.51(a)(2).
 

  1. Matter of Caroline P. Sevy Trust
    24PR01119
    Petition for Order Authorizing Trustee to File Action to Partition Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 13, 2024.
 

  1. Matter of Julie C Van Alyea Trust
    24PR01121
    Petition for Order Modifying Trust and for Appointment of Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The Petition is GRANTED. The request to appoint Petitioner Julie C. Van Alyea as Successor Trustee is moot as the Court already granted the ex parte application to appoint her as trustee on December 23, 2024. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted December 13, 2024, with the revision noted.
 

  1. Matter of the Resing Family Trust
    24PR01129
    Petition to Modify Irrevocable Trust and Terminate Small Trusts

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 18, 2024.
 

  1. Cons of Gary L Defrance
    SPR85182
    Fifth Account and Report by Co-Trustees and Petition for Allowance of Co-Trustees' Fees, Attorney Fees, and Reduction in Bond

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED, except that bond is set at $44,000.00. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 5, 2024, but will include the correct bond amount.

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 file, 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.
 

  1. Matter of the Lawrence Peterson and Doris M. Peterson Trust
    SPR097108
    Amended Verified Petition Compelling Attorney in Fact to Submit Accounting and Report and for Attorney’s Fees

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to May 16, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 for the reasons set forth below.

Per the parties’ recently filed statements of issues, no meet and confer has occurred. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file updated statements of issues at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing date in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3. The parties are ORDERED to specifically address each issue discussed below in their updated statements of issues.

  1. The first issue is whether the petitioner has standing and whether the issue of standing can be decided on the papers. Heidi Diamantini’s objection filed December 12, 2024, asserts the petitioner lacks standing. No legal authority is presented in support of this position. The Court offers the following tentative view: as the granddaughter of the decedent and a potentially interested heir, the petitioner has standing to bring this petition pursuant to California Probate Code §§4540(d)&(k). There do not appear to be any contested material factual issues concerning standing.

If, after meet and confer, this issue is not fully resolved, the respondent must indicate the specific legal and factual basis for their position that the petitioner lacks standing. Both parties must indicate whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine this issue.

  1. The second issue is whether Heidi Diamantini ever served as attorney-in-fact for the decedent. The information presently before the Court tends to show that this was a springing power of attorney (See California Probate Code §§4030, 4129,) that the contingency never occurred (i.e. decedent did not lose capacity prior to her death,) and thus Heidi Diamantini never served as attorney-in-fact. In her February 26, 2025 filed statement of issues, the petitioner disputes that the power of attorney was never activated. If, after meet and confer, this issue is not fully resolved, the petitioner must indicate the specific facts forming the basis for their position that the power of attorney was activated. Both parties must indicate whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine this issue.

The Court finds no logic in the petitioner’s assertion that Heidi Diamntini is required to account because she is named as the attorney-in-fact in a springing power of attorney even if that springing power of attorney never came into effect and she took no actions as attorney-in-fact for the decedent. There is nothing to be included in an attorney-in-fact accounting if no actions were taken as attorney-in-fact.

  1. The third issue is whether the respondent took any actions that would require her to account to the petitioner even if she never served as attorney-in-fact. The petitioner takes the position that even if the power of attorney was never activated, the respondent took actions on the decedent’s behalf such that the respondent has an obligation to account to the petitioner. No legal authority is presented in support of this assertion. If, after meet and confer, this issue is not fully resolved, the petitioner must succinctly state the legal and factual basis for this position. Both parties must indicate whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine this issue.
  1. The fourth issue is whether the court should exercise its discretion to order an attorney-in-fact accounting to the petitioner. California Probate Code §4541(c) limits the persons entitled to receive a court ordered attorney-in-fact accounting to “the principal, the spouse of the principal, the conservator of the person or the estate of the principal, or to any other person required by the court in its discretion.” Also see California Probate Code §§4236(b) and (c). As the petitioner here is not one of the people ordinarily entitled to an attorney-in-fact accounting by statute, the Court must exercise its discretion to compel delivery of an accounting to the petitioner. If, after meet and confer, this issue is not fully resolved, both parties must address whether said exercise of discretion is warranted and must provide the specific legal and/or factual basis for their positions. The parties must also indicate whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine this issue.

            ***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?