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 Access the Probate Examiner Notes:

• Access the Portal
• Accept the Terms
• Select Smart Search, enter your case number, and follow the instructions.

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 Lawrence Family 2004 Trust, Richard P. Lawrence and Carol A. Lawrence Co-Trustee and Settlors and the Peter R. Lawrence Irrevocable Trust
   25PR00848
   Petition concerning the internal affairs of a Trust and for Orders thereon including: (1) Determining Questions of Construction of Trust Instrument; Existence or Nonexistence of Power Duty, or Right, and Validity of Trust Amendment; (2) Ascertaining Beneficiaries and Determining to Whom Property Shall Pass upon Termination of Trust; (3) Instructing Trustee and Compelling Trustee to Account, Report Financial Information Concerning Trust Property and to Distribute Trust Property; (4) Suspending Trustee and Appointing an Interim Independent Trustee; (5) Removing Trustee and Appointing an Independent Successor Trustee; (6) Prohibiting Trustee from Using Trust Funds; (7) for Redress of a Breach of Trust; (8) Damages for Financial Abuse of a Disabled Citizen; (9) Allocation of Attorney Fees and Costs; (10) Quiet Title

Tentative Ruling: This petition was filed in July of 2025. After two continuances, and despite the prior rulings of the court addressing these problems, the petition is not properly verified, and there is no proof of service to several trust beneficiaries. The petitioner has not filed a statement of issues, despite being ordered to do so previously. Therefore, the petition DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Sonoma County Local Rule 6.2(C)(2)(c).

 

2. Matter of The Josephine M. Bustamente Trust
   25PR01491
   Petition to Confirm Trustee

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The Court finds certain matters can be decided as a matter of law on the pleadings before it and so rules as follows.

As to standing, the petitioner asks the Court to clarify that Johann Diaz (Johann) does not have standing as a named successor trustee of the trust he asserts was revoked. This is correct.  The Court is aware of no legal basis to find that a person has standing as a trustee or an interested person solely by virtue of their being named as a successor trustee in a trust instrument before they take office. That said, Johann is the settlor’s child and would be an intestate heir if the trust is found to have been validly revoked by the settlor. Johann is also the proponent of documents purporting to remove the petitioner as trustee and appoint Johann as trustee. Should Johann’s allegations be proven and the trust is found to be revoked, Johann is an intestate heir. California Probate Code §48 and 1043 apply to hearings on petitions in trust proceedings, and allow interested persons to respond or object to such petitions. Colvis v. Binswanger (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 393, 398. Also see Hamlin v. Jendayi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1064, 1075. An interested person is one who has a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding. Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 728. When determining issues of standing pre-trial, the allegations of the person whose standing is contested are taken as true. See Starr v. Ashbrook (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 999, 1017.  The Court notes, in light of the existence of the restraining order after hearing, that if a basis under Probate Code section 259 is established, Johann would be treated as having predeceased the settlor and would no longer be an heir.  While a section 259 claim is not presently pled, the Court notes the petition was filed prior to the resolution of the elder abuse restraining order case and must consider that such an amendment may be sought.

As to the validity of the petitioner’s authority as successor trustee based on the settlor’s incapacity, the respondent’s argument that the documents presented by the petitioner cannot support a finding that the settlor was incapacitated under the terms of the trust is incorrect. Trust section 7.5(a) indicates that subsections (i) through (iv) are disjunctive. Section 7.5(a)(i) can apply whether or not Nancy Hoffman, PsyD is board certified or the other requirements of 7.5(a)(ii) are satisfied. Section 7.5(a) of Trust states in relevant part:

(a) For purposes of this instrument, a person is deemed "incapacitated" or deemed to suffer from "incapacity" if any of the following circumstances apply:
(i) The person is unable to provide properly for that person' s own needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter; to manage substantially that person's own financial resources; or to resist fraud or undue influence.
(ii) Either a medical doctor, board-certified neuropsychologist, or a board certified psychiatrist, not related by blood or marriage to any trustee or beneficiary, examines such person and declares under penalty of perjury that such person is either temporarily or permanently incapacitated, according to generally accepted medical definition.

The reports relied on by Petitioner to exercise his powers as successor trustee are sufficient under the requirements of the trust. Doctor Selvan is a licensed physician in the State of California, and she states settlor lacks capacity. Dr. Selvan's letter further clarifies that she is not related to settlor, nor is she a direct or indirect beneficiary of the trust.  Doctor Hoffman is a licensed neuropsychologist in the State of California, with

specialized training and has testified as an expert witness on the issue of capacity before this Court on several occassions.  The reports relied on by petitioner are valid determinations of the settlor’s lack of capacity as required by the trust.  As a result, the petitioner’s assumption of the role of successor trustee and subsequent exercise of his duties as successor trustee under the terms of the trust is established by the undisputed evidence and the Court confirms the petitioner as the current successor trustee.  Between now and when the remaining issues in this matter are finally determined the trust shall operate as a valid instrument currently in effect.  That said, the Court does not think this finding precludes the ability of the objector to contest whether their opinions were correct, and whether the settlor actually did or did not have capacity is still something that can be litigated at the trial.

Petitioner shall submit an order after hearing consistent with the interim orders of the Court issued by this ruling.

The only issues to be set for trial will be the validity of the later executed November 2025 documents, of which the objector is the proponent, and undue influence.  The objector shall have the burden of proof at trial to establish the validity of the later executed documents.  As to who bears the burden of proof on the question of undue influence, and whether any presumption applies, that depends on what the evidence establishes.  As a practical matter, petitioner shall present his case first. Counsel for the parties should be prepared to discuss their trial availability, their estimates for length of trial, and the amount of time needed to finish discovery and otherwise prepare for trial.

Finally, the objector asks the Court to order that the settlor be brought to court or order that the petitioner not remove the settlor from her assisted living facility at the time of the hearing. This request is an indication to the Court that the objector has no interest in the welfare of the elder here and completely misapprehends the rules applicable to this probate case.  First, attendance at a court proceeding is a stressful and anxiety producing event for capacitated adults.  There is ample evidence in the record that the settlor suffers from a significant degree of impairment from which the Court can draw the reasonable inference that attendance by the settlor has the potential to be even more upsetting than for the average person.  Second, the risk of such emotional upset is offset by no possible gain in that this hearing involves no opportunity for the presentation of testimony from any party and the time for any objection has come and gone under Probate Code section 1043.  And given the allegations of undue influence in this case, the idea of the Court requiring the settlor to state a position, which would have no evidentiary or legal effect, in the artificial environment of a brief court appearance involving family contestants is absurd, bordering on abusive.  The settlor has received proper notice in this action, and the objector presents no legal authority supporting an order requiring the settlor to attend court.  The request is just inexplicable, will accomplish nothing, has no legal basis, and yet is attended by the great potential to cause harm to the settlor.  The Court will not order the settlor to attend the hearing under these circumstances.

 

3. Matter of The Dennis A. Ricci Revocable Trust
   25PR01516
   Petition For: 1. Order For Accounting; 2. Suspension, Removal, And Replacement Of Trustee; 3. Order To Quiet Title And For Recovery Of Trust And Estate Property Under Probate Code Section 850; 4. Invalidation Of Purported Trust Instrument – Undue Influence; 5. Invalidation Of Purported Trust Instrument – Fraud; 6. Reformation – Mistake Of Fact; 7. Order For Damages And Attorney’s Fees Under Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15610.30 And Probate Code Section 859; 8. Unjust Enrichment / Restitution; 9.  Constructive Trust/Blocked Account; 10. Order Preventing Respondent From Using Trust Assets To Defend This Action; And 11. Order To Send Interested Parties To Mediation Under Probate Code Section 17206

Tentative Ruling: Per the recently filed statements of issues, the parties have met and conferred and completed some discovery. The revelations of the recently completed discovery may resolve certain barriers to settlement or otherwise change the petitioner’s position. Counsel for the parties are positive about the prospect of informal resolution. Each party suggests continuing the matter. Therefore, the matter is CONTINUED to November 20, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63. The parties are ORDERED to comply with local rules 6.2.F.2 and 6.2.F.3 in advance of the continued hearing. The petitioner is also ORDERED to provide a copy of the trust, as set forth below, and to correct the notice problem indicated below.

For every petition filed pursuant to Division 9 of the Probate Code (“Prob C,”) the petition must include a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, including all amendments thereto, and all attachments, schedules, and exhibits. Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8(A). No trust instrument is attached to the petition, despite indication in the petition that the petitioner has previously received a copy of the trust. At least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing, the petitioner must file, by verified supplement, a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, including all amendments thereto, and all attachments, schedules, and exhibits.

Per paragraphs 19 and 49 of the petition, some of the assets at issue in the Prob C §850 aspects of this petition are financial accounts. However, the entity(ies) in possession of the accounts (the financial institutions) have not been served as required by 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.)

For ease of reference, the Court also reiterates the following rulings from April 24, 2026:

The Court finds that the petitioner’s standing to seek a trust accounting and to seek removal and replacement of the trustee is dependent on his success in his efforts to invalidate or reform the trust. Therefore, the requests for an accounting and for removal and replacement of the trustee will trail the outcome of the invalidation or reformation claims. Prob C §§24(c) and 48. In probate proceedings, an interested person is a person that has an interest of some sort that may be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding at issue. Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 728.

The Court does not find any sufficient basis to conclude that trust property or the interests of a beneficiary may suffer loss or injury pending a decision on the petition for removal of the trustee at this time and does not order suspension. Prob C §15642(e).

Any request to prevent the respondent from using trust and estate assets to defend this action must be by noticed motion. Any request for a Breslin mediation order must be by noticed motion. Any request for allocation of attorney fees must be made by noticed motion and include the authority for an award of costs and fees, as well as support for the amount requested. With respect to costs, any person entitled to recovery of costs may seek costs by a memorandum of costs filed with the court and subject to a motion to tax, at the conclusion of the matter.

 

4. Matter of The David Dews, Jr. Trust
   26PR00036
   Cross-Petition to Invalidate Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to November 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63.  An objection was filed on August 5, 2026 and this matter is now contested.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer and to file statements of issues in accordance with the local rules.

 

5. Matter of The David Dews, Jr. Trust
   26PR00036
   Petition for Order to Confirm Validity of Trust and Assets in Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to November 20, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 to trail the Cross-Petition to Invalidate Trust filed April 23, 2026. The instant petition seeks to confirm the validity of the David Dews, Jr Trust and seeks to confirm that certain property is held by the trust. The objection and counter-petition assert that the trust is invalid for a number of reasons. The Court finds it appropriate to adjudicate the issues related to the validity of the trust prior to adjudicating this petition.

 

6. Matter of the Inez B. Hensley Trust
   26PR00476
   Petition for Removal of Trustee, Account, and Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling:   The respondent filed a declaration on July 24, 2026. The declaration does not specifically contest the removal issue, but it does reveal that there was a trust amendment under which the petitioner and respondent were to serve as co-trustees. It also indicates that a substantial amount of clean-up has occurred on the trust owned real property, including removal of items and debris. It also indicates that after some back and forth, an agreement was reached by the parties with respect to the underlying disputes. It seems the parties have agreed to sell the property and split the proceeds, including a repayment of the money the petitioner paid in property taxes, which taxes should have been paid by the respondent. The petitioner has not filed a Statement of Issues or otherwise provided any status update to the Court. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether the case has been entirely resolved by said agreement such that the case can now be dismissed or whether there will be an application for Court approval of a settlement agreement (which the Court notes can be submitted as a drop-off ex parte).  Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to October 16, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 63.  The parties are ordered to continue to meet and confer and to file statements of issue in compliance with the local rules.  If a dismissal is filed the matter will be dropped from calendar.

 

7. Matter of the Schlesinger Family Trust
   26PR00521
   Petition for an Order Determining Trust’s Title to Real and Personal Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged April 27, 2026.

 

8. Matter of Maria L Cook Trust
   26PR00522
   Verified Petition for Instructions and for Order Directing Distribution of Trust Assets and for Order Suspending and Removing Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED in part and CONTINUED in part, as set forth below.

Alan Duane Cook is removed as trustee and Michael Cook is appointed the sole trustee, to serve without bond. Michael Cook is directed to proceed with distributions provided under section 7.02 of the Trust, and any other applicable trust terms, as soon as reasonably practicable.

Alan Duane Cook’s “objection” filed July 27, 2026 fails to deny or dispute any material facts and is not responsive to the petition in any material way, and thus is not legally sufficient pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(b). The Court therefore finds it does not function to contest the petition.

As to the damages/surcharge requested in the petition, evidence will need to be presented to this Court before a decision can be rendered. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to November 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63.  The purpose of the continuance is to allow the petitioner time to prepare to present written evidence to the Court and respondent regarding the amount of any damages/surcharge claimed. Unless the petitioner needs and requests more time, the petitioner should file and serve written evidence supporting the damages sought at least 10 days before the hearing. In the absence of any objection, the Court may decide the question based solely on the written evidence submitted.  However, if there is an objection, or if the Court determines it requires live testimony, it may set an evidentiary hearing.

The Court finds this structure is necessary as the respondent may yet contest the amounts sought despite his failure to validly object to the underlying petition. As an analogy, the Court points to the structure in civil cases for damages following a default. There, the amount of damages that may be awarded are limited by the allegations of the complaint, even where a statement of damages is served prior to entry of default. As discussed in the case of Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267:

We begin with the basic guidelines for analyzing the legal effect of a default. “Substantively, ‘[t]he judgment by default is said to “confess” the material facts alleged by the plaintiff, i.e., the defendant's failure to answer has the same effect as an express admission of the matters well pleaded in the complaint.” (Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 823, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, second italics added.) The “well-pleaded allegations” of a complaint refer to “ ‘ “all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” ’ ” (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 205, 129 P.3d 394, quoting Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241.) Because the default confesses those properly pleaded facts, a plaintiff has no responsibility to provide the court with sufficient evidence to prove them—they are treated as true for purposes of obtaining a default judgment. (Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1746, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 391.) But that is all the default does. There is no penalty for defaulting. “A defendant has the right to elect not to answer the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 829 [231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295].) Although this may have been a tactical move by defendant, it is a permissible tactic.” (Stein v. York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 320, 325, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) And if the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default judgment in the plaintiff's favor cannot stand. On appeal from the default judgment, “[a]n objection that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action may be considered.” see (Martin v. Lawrence (1909) 156 Cal. 191, 103 P. 913; Bristol Convalescent Hosp. v. Stone (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 848, 859, 66 Cal.Rptr. 404.)

Id. at 281–282 (italics in original). Damages following a default are generally limited to those demanded in the complaint:

[Plaintiff’s] complaint also fails to set forth any clear demand for damages, let alone one which would support the enormous judgment he obtained from the trial court. As this court has iterated and then reiterated, Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, we have also made it clear that a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death. “Statements of damages are used only in personal injury and wrongful death....[Citation.] In all other cases, when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint. [Citations.]” (Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 206, fn. 4, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 823….)

Id. at 286.

While this is not a civil action, the concern, based in due process, exists equally.  That is the amount of damages to be claimed in the future are not apparent from the allegations of the petition. Rather, the basis for the amount of damages will necessarily be developed following the production of the accounting and/or investigation by petitioner. The petition therefore fails to provide notice to the respondent that a judgment against her for a specific amount would result from her failure to object to the petition. Of course, at any future hearing, the respondent may not contest any of the allegations of the petition, but he is entitled to be given an opportunity to present evidence and argument responsive to any claim for a specified amount of damages then raised.

The request for costs of suit associated with the petition and any hearing may be claimed pursuant to a memorandum of costs filed with the court and subject to a motion to strike or tax at the conclusion of the matter.

Any request for attorney’s fees must be by noticed motion and include the authority for an award, as well as support for the amount requested.

Counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit a revised proposed order after hearing that conforms to this ruling.  The Court will issue a written order.

 

9. Matter of Jackie Edson Gage, William D Gage Trust
   26PR00527
   Petition for an Order to Confirm Assets of Revocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: The matter is CONTINUED to November 20, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to correct the notice defects, noted below.

Use of the DE-115 notice of hearing form is mandatory in the context of California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §850 petitions. The petitioner has used the incorrect notice of hearing form here, the DE-120 form. Also, the notice of hearing does not include a description of the subject property, as required by Prob C §851(c)(1). These issues were noted in the examiner notes posted June 24, 2026 but have not been corrected.

If the petitioner can obtain a waiver of notice from the remainder beneficiaries, they may file it in advance of the hearing and request to appear at the hearing (in accordance with applicable local rules) to present the waiver to the Court, potentially avoiding the continuance.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***