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 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

April 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Else Storm Rodriguez Trust
    23PR00337

Petition to Compel Redress Per §16420 for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under §4233 Sub. (A), §4264 Sub, (C), (E) and (F), Breach of Trust and Request for Instruction                              

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED with prejudice in part and DENIED without prejudice in part as set forth below.

The petition for instructions is DENIED with prejudice. The petitioner “requests the Court provide an instruction of under what criteria is the February 6, 2019, Amendment and Restatement of the ESRT void.” This asks the Court to provide legal advice and is not a proper subject of a petition for instructions, which is a mechanism used to instruct a trustee or other personal representative with respect to administration.

The petition is DENIED with prejudice to the extent it seeks relief related to actions Lorene Kay Fisher took as attorney-in-fact for the decedent, or for violations of her duties as attorney-in-fact under the Durable Power of Attorney (“DPOA.”) These claims attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been decided.

The issue of whether Lorena Kay Fisher (“Lorena”) took any actions under her authority as attorney-in-fact for the decedent has been decided in the negative. The petitioner previously petitioned the Court for an order requiring Lorena to prepare a DPOA accounting. The Court denied the request for a DPOA accounting in its July 7, 2025 Findings and Order After Hearing of June 20, 2025, etc. Per the tentative ruling issued in advance of the June 20, 2025 hearing, the threshold issue to be discussed at the June 20, 2025 hearing was the issue of whether Lorena actively used the DPOA. After hearing and after taking the matter under submission, the Court issued a ruling on July 7, 2025, which states, “Petitioner has made no offer of proof of actions taken by Lorena Fisher as the DPOA by for which she must account.” The ruling also states that Lorena’s assertion that she took no action under the DPOA was not contradicted by evidence or offer of proof. In so finding, the Court concluded that no DPOA accounting was due.

Collateral estoppel specifically applies when “(1) [an] issue raised in the present action is identical to [an] issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.” Brinton v. Banker’s Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal. App.4th 550, 556.  This can be broken down into five more specific elements for collateral estoppel: 1) the issue is identical to one decided in another proceeding; 2) the issue was actually litigated in the other proceeding; 3) the issue must have been necessarily decided in the other proceeding; 4) the decision in the other proceeding is a final ruling on the merits; and 5) the party against whom preclusion is sought is the same as, or in privity with, the party in the other proceeding.  Hernandez v. City of Pomona (2009) 46 Cal.4th 501, 511.

Here, the issue is identical. The issue in the instant petition is whether Lorena took action under her authority as attorney-in-fact for the decedent that would subject her to liability, but the Court has already decided that Lorena took no action under the DPOA. This issue was actually litigated in the other proceeding. After hearing the petitioner could not articulate facts, even by offer of proof, contradicting Lorena’s assertion that she never took action as attorney-in-fact for the decedent, as stated in the Court’s July 7, 2025 ruling, the issue was decided. The ruling of July 7, 2025 states, “Petitioner has made no offer of proof of actions taken by Lorena Fisher as the DPOA by for which she must account.” The decision in the other proceeding is a final ruling on the merits. The Court denied the petition for a DPOA accounting on the merits. Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought is the same person as the petitioner here. Therefore, the petition is denied to the extent it seeks relief related to actions Lorena allegedly took as DPOA, or for violations of her duties as DPOA, because such claims attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been decided.

The same analysis applies to the joint Exchange Bank accounts.  The Court has ruled that they are not trust assets.  See ruling of April 18, 2025.  The claims raised related to the Exchange Bank accounts are DENIED with prejudice.

There do appear to be some potential material disputes of fact related to whether Lorena mismanaged the trust, failed to adequately account, properly justified her expenses and whether the petitioner’s beneficial interest in the trust has suffered financial loss or harm.  However, the allegations are so intertwined with the claims related to the DPOA and the joint accounts, that the Court cannot define matters that can clearly be set for trial.  The interweaving of the allegations is so extensive, that the Court finds it amounts to a lack of notice to the respondent (and Court) of what matters will actually be tried that do not in effect attempt to re-litigate matters already finally ruled upon by the Court.  Therefore these claims are DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition within 30 days that raises such claims without reference to those matters already adjudicated by the Court.  Inclusion of allegations related to the DPOA and joint bank accounts in a new petition will likely subject it to demurrer.

As the Court has previously indicated in prior rulings, any request for allocation/award of attorney fees and costs 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.

  1. Matter of The Darrell Lee Parker and Jane Parker Revocable Intervivos Trust
    24PR00996

Petition to Recover Property Pursuant to Probate Code Section 850

Tentative Ruling: This petition was dismissed without prejudice on April 1, 2026. The hearing is DROPPED from calendar.  Matter remains on calendar on April 24, 2026 for trial on the petition filed by Matthew Schofield on November 1, 2024.

  1. Matter of The Himmelstein Family Trust
    25PR01036

Petition for Order Accepting Resignation of Trustee and Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 10, 2025, but will include the following language: For the Frederika Dokus Share, bond of $539,000.00 is required. For the Levi Dokus Share, bond of $603,000.00 is required.

  1. Matter of the James Curtis Flint Trust
    25PR01069

Petition for Orders to: 1) Authorize and Direct Conveyance of Real Property from Third Party Claimant to Trust; (2) Fraud; (3) Undue Influence; (4) Lack of Capacity; (5) Compel Trustee to Produce Code Compliant Accounting; (6) Order for Damages and Attorney’s Fees

Tentative Ruling: This matter has been continued to July 17, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 by stipulation of the parties.

  1. Matter of the Joseph Gerald Everett Trust
    25PR01072

Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee and Approve Attorney's Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED, except that the request for allowance of attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,000.00 is DENIED because it is without factual basis. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 26, 2025.

  1. Matter of The Zaiga K Moon Trust
    25PR01435

Petitioner Jennifer S. Moon’s Petition to Confirm Certain Real Property of Settlor Zaiga K. Moon to the Settlor’s Trust- Entitlement to Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 10, 2025.

  1. Matter of The Duane I Delong Trust
    25PR01440

Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to July 17, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12, the next available hearing date, to allow the petitioner an opportunity to cure the notice defects noted below and in the probate examiner notes posted February 24, 2026.

The petition indicates that the subject real property was refinanced. If there is a mortgage holder or other person holding interest in the property, they must be served in accordance with California Probate Code (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.)

All trust beneficiaries are entitled to notice of this petition. Prob C §851(b). The settlor’s grandchildren are named as specific gift beneficiaries under the first amendment to the restated trust, which is attached as Exhibit C to the petition, but they have not been served. The Court will not require notice to Sheila Maureen Delong, as she has been expressly disinherited from this trust.

  1. Matter of The Holt Trust, dated November 10, 2015
    25PR01443

Petition for Order Determining Title to Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to real property located outside this state. Probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. Capra v. Capra (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1082, as modified (Jan. 15, 2021). A superior court has jurisdiction to determine the interests of all parties connected with the property of a decedent based on the property's location within the state. Id. “California courts do not have in rem jurisdiction over out-of-state property.” Conservatorship of Hume (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 393, 406.

However, does the court have jurisdiction over the issue of the relationship of assets to the trust sufficient to enter a finding that the out-of-state real property is an asset of the trust, and therefore direct the trustee to take action to change title accordingly?  As stated in Conservatorship of Hume, Id.:

There is a distinction between in rem jurisdiction over property and in personam jurisdiction over in-state parties; family law, for example, long ago solved the problem of foreign real property within community estates by recognizing the jurisdiction of a court to order parties to take action, as distinct from adjudicating rights directly. Thus, family courts regularly use their jurisdiction over in-state divorcing spouses to order them to take whatever action is necessary to transfer interests in real property located out of state, and there is no jurisdictional obstacle to having divorcing spouses account for such property.

At this time, the Court makes no determination whether the principle stated above transfers to probate.  But if counsel would like an opportunity to brief this issue, they may request to appear and the Court will continue the hearing and set a schedule for further briefing.

  1. Matter of The Carlson-Hurst Trust
    25PR01449

Petition for Modification of Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 15, 2025.

  1. Cons of Kenenth Robbins
    SPR72943

Petition for Settlement of Eleventh and Final Account and Report of Trustee; Petition for Allowance of Fees to Trustee and to Trustee’s Attorney; and Petition for Final Discharge of Trustee of Special Needs Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged February 2, 2026.

*End of Tentative Ruling*

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?