Skip to main content.

ATTENTION JURORS SUMMONED THE WEEK OF 6/9/25 ONLY

Due to a printing error, you will receive a second summons, please disregard the first summons. If you have any questions, please contact the jury office at (707) 521-6640. 

Notice of court closure Juneteenth Day:

The Superior Court of Sonoma County will be closed Thursday, June 19th in observance of Juneteenth Day.

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
June 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 

  1. Matter of the Madden Family Trust of 1991
    24PR00196
    Petition for Order Approving Settlement Agreement

Tentative Ruling: The Court notes the proposed order lodged March 28, 2025, lists other cases in the caption that are not on calendar.  The proposed order refers to them as “related” cases.  There presently is no court order relating any of the cases, nor is there a notice of related case filed in any of the probate cases.  There is a notice of related case filed in the civil case (24CV07436), but it does not appear any action was taken on it.  A review of the settlement agreement of the parties reveals that the settlement reached was “global” as to all pending litigation.  Therefore, in order to assist the parties in completing their settlement agreement, the Court, on its own motion, orders the following cases related pursuant to California Rule of Court Rule 3.300:

24PR00196
24PR00803
24CV07436
25PR00223

The Court finds a review of the underlying allegations in each action reveals that the claims asserted in these actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, arise from the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, or are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Case 24CV07436 is presently assigned to the Honorable Judge Oscar Pardo.  It is hereby ordered reassigned to the Honorable Judge Jennifer Dollard for all purposes.  If any interested party has an objection to the order relating the cases, or the assignment to the above judicial officer for all purposes, they shall request to appear for the purpose of stating their objection or it shall be waived.  The Court directs the clerk to file a copy of this order in each of the above cases and to relate them in the Court’s case management system.  The Court notes it has been designated as the judicial officer responsible for determining whether civil and probate cases should be related pursuant to CRC Rule 3.300(C) and (D) by the Honorable Shelly J. Averill, Presiding Judge, by her standing order issued and filed on June 4, 2024. 

The Petition for Order Approving Settlement Agreement in this case, 24PR00196, is APPROVED. 

As the settlement agreement contemplates the filing of dismissals in cases 24PR00803, 24CV07436, and 25PR00223, and withdrawal of opposition to the Petition in this case, the Court does not vacate the hearings set in those matters.  The Petition in this case for approval of First Account Current and Report of Successor Trustee, and Petition for Instructions and for Allowance of Compensation is CONTINUED to July 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12 for status of dismissal as contemplated by the parties’ settlement agreement. 

The Court orders that case 24CV07436 is SET for hearing July 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12 for status of dismissal.

The hearings in case 24PR00803 set for hearing June 20, 2025, are CONTINUED to July 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12 for status of dismissal.

If dismissals have been filed at least seven (7) days prior to the hearings, no appearance will be required and the hearing will be vacated.

 

  1. Matter of the Potts 2000 Revocable Trust
    24PR00276
    Amended Pre-Death and Post-Death Accounts and Report of Trustee of the Bypass Trust and of the Survivor's Trust Under the Potts 2000 Revocable Trust, and Petition for Their Settlement

Tentative Ruling: By stipulation of the parties, this matter is CONTINUED to August 15, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12.

 

  1. Matter of Alberta I. Goetz Trust
    24PR00959
    Petition for Accounting and for Information Related to Trust Administration

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to September 19, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. The petitioner’s recently filed statement of issues indicates that settlement is likely and requests more time to work towards informal resolution. The parties are ordered to continue to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and 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.

Also, the petitioner filed an amended petition on June 9, 2025. The only change is to the title of the pleading, which change was required by this Court’s January 31, 2025, ruling. Therefore, the Court does not consider the amended petition to be improper pursuant to Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §472(a), despite the fact that it was filed after the objections. However, the petitioner is ORDERED to serve of notice of the continued hearing date on the amended petition as required by California Rules of Court Rule 7.53(a).

 

  1. Matter of Salada Living Trust
    24PR00973
    Petition for Removal of Trustee, Compelling Accounting, and Other Relief

Tentative Ruling: The Court’s June 6, 2025, order continued this matter to October 17, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. Matter is off calendar.

 

  1. Matter of James N. Cole Trust
    25PR00348
    Petition  for Modification of Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 28, 2025.

 

  1. Matter of Dylan Alvarez Settlement Trust
    SPR091582
    Petition to Approve Fourth Account and Report of Trustee From 10/01/2022 Through 9/30/2024, and to Approve Trustee's and Attorney's Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 25, 2025.
 

  1. Matter of the Laurel Rose Special Needs Trust
    SPR093768
    Third Account Current and Report as Trustee and Petition for its Settlement and for Allowance of Trustee's Fees and Attorney's Fees

Tentative Ruling: No financial statement is lodged that shows the account balance for the Exchange Bank Account #3626 as of December 31, 2024. Providing this statement is required by the trust and the law. See Trust Article Four section 2(F) and California Probate Code §2620(c)(2). Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to August 15, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to lodge said financial statement. Should the petitioner be able to lodge the statement in advance of the hearing, they may request to appear at the hearing (in accordance with all local rules) to present the statement to the Court and avoid the continuance.

 

  1. Matter of the Anderson Family Trust, dated August 6, 2020
    SPR094893
    Petition for the Second Account and Report from June 17, 2022 to June 16, 2024

Tentative Ruling: The supplement of June 6, 2025, is late. This Court’s March 21, 2025, ruling required the supplement to be filed at least seven court days in advance of the June 13, 2025, hearing, but the petitioner failed to timely file the supplement. Failure to act in a timely manner in the future may result in additional delays.

The Court’s March 21, 2025 ruling required the petitioner to address four issues: (1) The lack of service to beneficiary Michael Anderson, (2) the lack of financial statements to support the accounting, (3) the inadequate descriptions of certain items in the accounting, and (4) the lack of any California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §1064(a)(5) allegation. Each issue is discussed below. The supplement filed June 6, 2025, raises a new issue about removing Chase account #9992 from court supervision, and this issue is also discussed below.

  1. Michael Anderson, a trust beneficiary, is entitled to notice pursuant to Prob C §17203(a)(2). There is no proof of service of notice of the June 13, 2025, hearing to Michael Anderson. The proof of service attached to the supplement filed June 6, 2025, shows service of the supplement to Michael Anderson, but shows that he was served care of Alejandra Serrano Prieto only. A notice mailed to a person in care of another person is insufficient unless the person entitled to notice is an adult and has directed the party giving notice in writing to send the notice in care of the second person. California Rules of Court Rule 7.51(a)(2). The petitioner is ORDERD to timely serve code compliant notice of the continued hearing to all necessary persons and file updated proof(s) of service.
  2. Financial statements were lodged June 6, 2025. The financial statements corroborate the schedule of property on hand at the end of the account period.

The financial statements include the invoices for the care facility where the beneficiary lives as required by Prob C §2620(c)(4). However, there are discrepancies between the invoices and the accounting. For example, the January 2023 invoice seeks $4,982.86, but the accounting reflects only $4,600.00 was paid for January of 2023. Also, there are numerous invoices from the care facility that have not been paid per the accounting. For example, invoices for September, October, and November of 2023 are shown, but there is no corresponding disbursement in the accounting. In fact, there is no payment to the care facility after February 8, 2024, reflected in the accounting, but there are invoices for those months following February 8, 2024, presented in the financial statements. The petitioner is ORDERED to file a second verified supplement addressing these discrepancies, which supplement shall be served and filed at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing.

  1. There are numerous disbursements reflected in the accounting that are not adequately described. The March 21, 2025, ruling required updated schedules, which were to include adequate descriptions of the items therein. No new schedules have been filed, and the petitioner, in the supplement, suggests that doing so would be “cost prohibitive.” The petitioner explains, at paragraph 1 of the supplement, that Chase account #9992 is the source of “many” of the unknown and unaccounted for disbursements. Some of the unknown disbursements are associated with Chase account #9992, however, not all of them are. Others are associated with Chase account #5868, which, per the supplement, is the account primarily used to pay the care costs for the beneficiary Michael. The information provided in the supplement is not specific enough to satisfy Prob C §1062(b). The law requires that these transactions be explained. The petitioner is ORDERED to address this problem in the aforementioned verified supplement.

As for the unknown receipts, paragraph 2 of the supplement indicates that they are all associated with Chase account #5868. This is not correct. Some of the money was deposited into the Chase account #9992. Other inadequately described receipts do not show which account received the money. The supplement explains that the petitioner deposits money from her work earnings to cover the cost of care for her husband, and that all of the unknown deposits are either from the petitioner’s work earnings or are the result of recent inheritances received by the petitioner and her husband. The information provided is not specific enough to satisfy Prob C §1062(a). The petitioner is ORDERED to address this problem in the aforementioned verified supplement.

  1. The petitioner has again failed to comply with Prob C §1064(a)(5). The petitioner should include the allegation required by said section in the aforementioned verified supplement.
  2. As to the issue of whether Chase account #9992 will be released from further court supervision, the Court reserves on this issue at this time. The petitioner is welcome to include further argument on this point in the aforementioned supplement.

On a final note, the Court is aware that the requirement of an accounting is burdensome and often requires the expenditure of resources (both tangible and intangible) that may be limited for a person caring for a loved one.  However, the Court is unable to perform its mandatory oversight function in the absence of the information required above.  The Court can exercise some discretion in this regard, but not when the starting posture of the case leaves tens of thousands of dollars unaccounted for. (The original accounting, for example, listed $56,168.56 in “Other Receipts,” described only as “Transfer From A/C” and “Venmo.” And $137,771.68 in receipts were described only as “Unknown Deposit.”) 

***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?