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

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

July 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Karin Hiller Trust
    25PR00106

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 Attorneys Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: Per the petitioner’s recently filed Statement of Issues, the active criminal investigation into the respondent continues, and there has been no charging decision. The petitioner indicates this case is not ready to proceed. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED to November 5, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 63 (Case Management Conference Calendar.) The petitioner should file a status update at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing date.

The petitioner is also directed to serve and file a verified supplement that lists the names and addresses of all persons entitled to notice pursuant to Prob Code §17201 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

  1. Matter of The Yvonne Kelly Separate Property Revocable Trust
    25PR00770

Petition for Final Distribution and to Dispense with Notice Upon Declaration of Diligence

Tentative Ruling:  On the question of whether Rochelle Ann Rutherford’s (Rochelle’s) gift should fail, per this Court’s October 13, 2025 Order, which is based on the trust terms applicable to this issue, the gift to Rochelle (10% of the remainder) fails if Rochelle does not complete a 60-day inpatient rehabilitation program for substance abuse disorder by May 25, 2026.   The requirements of the trust created by the settlor are unequivocal and state:

“Rochelle Anne Rutherford shall attend an inpatient rehabilitation program for her substance abuse disorder. The program shall be a 60-day inpatient rehabilitation program. and she shall list Jason Kelly as her emergency contact and give the program permission to release her information to him, and she shall sign any releases needed to do so. Should Rochelle Anne Rutherford not have insurance for the program or funds to pay for such program, the Trust shall pay for such program. Upon proof of completion of such program, Rochelle Anne Rutherford shall be distributed 10% of the estate. Should these conditions not be met, she shall receive 0 (Zero) distribution from the Trust.”

The material facts necessary to resolve the question before the Court are not in dispute.  Rochelle was notified of the order months prior to the homicide in March 2026 to which she was a witness.  She had ample and reasonable time to comply long prior to that date.  The risk of delay in completion was solely hers to control.  As such, she bears the burden of that risk.  Her decision to wait until nearly the last possible opportunity to succeed, and her resulting untimely start at treatment, is solely her responsibility.  Completion of a qualifying program would have required enrollment by March 26, 2026. There is no dispute she did not enroll in any program until April 10, 2026. She admits she did not strictly comply with the trust terms, and that she did not complete any program until June 8, 2026, which was two weeks late. The objector also admits that the program she attended was a 33-day substance abuse detox program, and 27 days of a sober living home program. This does not meet the settlor’s requirements of a 60-day inpatient rehabilitation program.  As to the failure of the trust to pay for a program, it was only required to pay for a program that complied with the requirements of the trust, or a 60-day inpatient rehabilitation program, and for which a release of information was signed.  The objection provides no evidence that the program the trust did not fund qualified with either requirement. 

In light of the above, Rochelle’s gift fails.  The Court acknowledges that this outcome is surely disappointing to Rochelle in light of the effort she did put into compliance, which treatment, while non-compliant, hopefully will provide its own benefit.  However, it is the duty of a probate court to determine the intent of the settlor or maker of a trust and, when determined, to give such intent effect.  Estate of Parrette (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 157, 161.  As to the equities, the Court observes that Rochelle’s children and grandchildren will benefit in her place. 

Therefore, the objection is overruled and the petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged April 15, 2026, but will strike proposed orders number 1 and 2, which relate to dispensation of notice.

On the issue of dispensing with notice to Rochelle, the issue is MOOT. Rochelle has generally appeared with respect to this petition, so no further notice to her is due. In re Poder's Estate (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 786, 791–792. California Rule of Court, Rule 7.52 allows dispensation of notice with respect to a particular probate proceeding, not to dispense will all future notice requirements that might be due to a trust beneficiary. But future notice is also moot because Rochelle is no longer a trust beneficiary as her gift has failed due to her non-compliance with the condition pertaining to her gift, as discussed above.

  1. Matter of Yvonne Kelly Separate Property Revocable Trust
    25PR00770

Petition for Order Instructing the Trustee Regarding Terms of the Trust

Tentative Ruling: The Honorable Rene A. Chouteau has signed the Orders to Deposit Funds in Blocked Accounts (MC-355 Judicial Counsel Forms) for each of the minors. There are no active issues related to this petition. The hearing on this petition is DROPPED from calendar.

  1. Matter of The Appleton Family Living Trust
    25PR01372

Petition to Invalidate Trust Based on Lack of Capacity and Undue Influence; Verified Complaint for Damages for Financial Elder Abuse

Tentative Ruling: The parties’ recently filed statements of issues indicate that the parties have agreed to participate in mediation, and that the matter is not yet ready to be set for trial. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to October 29, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 63 (Case Management Conference Calendar.) The parties are ordered to comply with Sonoma County Local Rules 6.2.F.2 and 6.2.F.3 in advance of the continued hearing.

  1. Matter of The Mearns Family Trust
    26PR00185

Petition to Remove Trustee; to Compel Formal Accounting; for Appointment of Successor Trustee; to Compel Distribution; and for Attorney Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: In advance of the initial hearing on this matter, which occurred on May 29, 2026, the Court posted a tentative ruling on the merits of the petition. On May 29, 2026, an opposition to the petition was filed, and the parties appeared at the hearing to discuss the matter with the Court. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner indicated that an agreement had been reached. This matter was continued to the present hearing date for status of settlement. The case has not been dismissed, there is no indication that a settlement agreement has been executed, and no status update has otherwise been filed. To give the parties additional time to resolve the case informally or otherwise update the Court as to the status of the case, this matter is CONTINUED to October 8, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 63 (Case Management Conference Calendar.) The parties are ordered to comply with local rules 6.2.F.2 and 6.2.F.3 in advance of the continued hearing.

  1. Matter of John W. Mentzer, Jr. Revocable Deed of Trust
    26PR00315

Petition for Modification or Termination of Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 12, 2026.

  1. Matter of The Willy & Grete Norup Trust
    26PR00335

Petition for Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to October 23, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63.  As an objection has been filed, this is now a contested matter.  The parties are ordered meet and confer and to comply with local rules 6.2.F.2 and 6.2.F.3 in advance of the continued hearing.  The Court is also aware a new petition was filed by objector on July 8, 2026, which is also set October 23, 2026. 

While the Court is not proceeding to the merits at this time, it notes for the benefit of the parties that even if it were inclined to order that Kim Norup is the sole successor trustee, bond must be addressed. The petition presently does not address bond, and there is no bond provision in the trust. As for the disclaimer trust, it is the Court’s view that the fifth amendment, executed unilaterally by the surviving settlor, is invalid (further discussed below.)  If petitioner is determined to be the rightful trustee the bond amount would be for all but the disclaimer trust (i.e. the survivor’s trust, bypass trust, and the main trust, which were amendable by the surviving settlor).  Under the fifth trust amendment, affecting all but the disclaimer trust, Kim Norup is not named as successor trustee and bond is required. California Probate Code §15602(a)(3).  As petitioner is already named a successor trustee under the disclaimer trust, bond there would not be required. California Probate Code §15602(a).

Petitioner is directed to serve and file a verified supplement, at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing, indicating the value of the trust res (aside from the res held in the disclaimer trust) so that, if the petition were to be granted, bond could be set in that amount.

The petitioner also seeks an order that the trust is valid. The fourth and fifth amendments, to the extent they purport to be amendments to the disclaimer trust, are invalid. Trust Article Three section 3.2 states the disclaimer trust becomes irrevocable at the death of the first settlor to die. The first settlor died prior to the execution of the fourth and fifth amendments, and the surviving settlor did not have the authority to amend the disclaimer trust unilaterally. Therefore, with respect to the validity issue, at most the Court would be inclined to order that the trust is valid except for the fourth and fifth amendments to the extent they purport to amend the disclaimer trust. The petitioner is invited to address this issue in the aforementioned verified supplement.  Of course, the Court understands that the entirety of the fifth amendment is also now in dispute in light of the newly filed petition by objector.

  1. Matter of the Matos Family Trust
    26PR00337

Petition to Determine Invalidity of Purported Trust Amendment; for Imposition of Constructive Trust; Damages for Elder Abuse

Tentative Ruling: This matter has been CONTINUED to October 23, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. by stipulation of the parties. The October 23, 2026, hearing date will now be considered the initial hearing date for purposes of objection pursuant to California Probate Code §1043(a).  Please note the matter will now be heard in Department 63.

  1. Matter of The CW Irrevocable Trust; The DW Irrevocable Trust
    26PR00356

Petition to Suspend and Remove Trustee Elizabeth Wall Hanson; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Demand for Accounting; Damages and Surcharge

Tentative Ruling: This matter was ordered transferred to San Francisco County.  The hearing is DROPPED from calendar.

  1. Matter of The Sharon Dufka Special Needs Trust
    26PR00368

Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee Upon Resignation of Acting Trustee; to Waive Bond, or in the Alternative, to Set Bond, and to Confirm Compliance with CRC 7.903

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. Bond of $167,000.00 is required. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 24, 2026, and will include the bond requirement therein.

  1. Matter of the John Lockley and Martha Jane Lockley 2000 Revocable Living Trust u/d/d
    SPR097774

First Account and Report of Successor Trustee and Petition for (1) Settlement of Account and (2) Ratification of Acts of Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The petition is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged November 6, 2025.

*End of Tentative Rulings*