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 Carolyn Ann Irwin Trust
   25PR00985
   Petition for Confirmation of Trust Property and for Instruction on the Distribution of Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  This petition is trailing the outcome of the litigation concerning the effectiveness of the August 2020 will under Case Number 25PR00478. Appearances are required solely for the purpose of selecting a future calendar control date for this case once the trial date in 25PR00478 is set.

The Court notes that the notice of hearing filed December 2, 2025 indicates a Wells Fargo account is the subject of this petition, but the proposed order lodged August 28, 2025 does not include the Wells Fargo account.

 

2. Matter of Carolyn Ann Irwin Trust
   25PR00985
   Petition to Determine Validity of the Carolyn Ann Irwin Living Trust dated August 4, 2020

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  This petition is trailing the outcome of the litigation concerning the effectiveness of the August 2020 will under Case Number 25PR00478. Appearances are required solely for the purpose of selecting a future calendar control date for this case once the trial date in 25PR00478 is set.

 

3. Matter of Jennifer L. Platt Trust
   25PR01092
   Petition for Instructions for the Jennfier L. Platt Trust, Dated November 20, 2024

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The Court is in receipt of a proposed order pursuant to stipulation to continue the present hearing filed on April 29, 2026.  While submitted later than required by the local rules, the Court finds it proper to entertain the request as timely given its ruling on the ex parte application filed April 27, 2026.  The matter is therefore CONTINUED to June 5, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12.  No further notice need be provided.  While this matter is not yet contested, the Court issues the below tentative ruling on the uncontested petition to inform the discussion of the parties between now and the next hearing.  For clarity, because it may be unclear when the initial hearing is for purposes of Probate Code section 1043, the Court will require any objection to the petition to be filed and served no later than May 29, 2026.  Failure to serve and file any objection by that time will be deemed a waiver of any such objection. California Rules of Court Rule 7.801.

The Court’s tentative views on the uncontested petition follow.  The below tentative ruling will NOT be adopted at the May 1, 2026 hearing, as that hearing is continued pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. To the extent any party disagrees with the below tentative ruling, or wishes to respond to the matters addressed therein, they may be heard on the future hearing date.

          I.   In reference to the proposed order lodged October 1, 2025

Proposed order number 1 is DENIED. Per Trust section 3.01(b), the trustee shall make direct payments to vendors for services utilized by Jennifer L. Platt upon submission statements or invoices from such vendors. The trustee suggests this method of distribution is inefficient and causes unneeded delay and cost. The trustee suggests that these distributions be handled via a TrueLink Cash Card. The cash card is already provided to the beneficiary pursuant to Trust 3.01(a) with an allowance of up to $1,300.00 per month.

The trustee cites California Probate Code §15409 in support of this request, but does not show that there are changed circumstances justifying modification. The proposed plan is contrary to the intent of the settlor as stated in the trust, and the Court finds no adequate basis for modifying or reforming the trust in the way suggested by the trustee.

Proposed order number 2 is DENIED. The petitioner asks the Court to include new terms in the trust that would impose new standards for distribution to the beneficiary. The trustee cites California Probate Code §15409 in support of this request, but does not show that there are changed circumstances justifying modification. The proposed plan is contrary to the intent of the settlor as stated in the trust, and the Court finds no adequate basis for modifying or reforming the trust in the way suggested by the trustee.

As for the request to instruct the trustee that the examples enumerated in Trust section 3.01(b) are illustrative and not exhaustive, this aspect of the petition is GRANTED, as this is a correct interpretation of the language “include, but are not limited to,” in Trust section 3.01(b).

Proposed order numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7 are GRANTED. As for proposed order number 5, the accountings are APPROVED.

     II.   In reference to the proposed order lodged March 30, 2026

Proposed orders number 3 and 4 are GRANTED. The supplemental accounting is APPROVED.

As for the application of the trust’s no-contest clause, the Court does not find that the trust’s no-contest clause applies to Jennier L. Platt at this time. To the extent the petition asks the Court to apply the no-contest clause to Jennifer L. Platt, that request is DENIED. A no contest clause is enforceable against a direct contest that is brought without probable cause. Dae v. Traver (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 456. The petitioner has the burden to show that the petition lacked probable cause. Key v. Tyler (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 531, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 7, 2019). The petitioner has not carried their burden here, because they do not show that the contest was brought without probable cause. The Court also is in no position to determine whether the petition was supported by probable cause. The petition contesting the trust was dismissed, and the issues raised by said petition will not be decided in this County because it is an inconvenient forum and, with respect to certain claims in the petition, the Court found it lacked personal jurisdiction.

As for the requests related to appointment of an interim or successor professional fiduciary, the request is DENIED without prejudice. No successor is nominated, and the Court does not maintain a list of approved professional fiduciaries, nor does the Court generally appoint successor or interim trustees without a nomination and an indication that the proposed trustee accepts the trust.

 

4. Matter of The Juliana Lindsey Trust
   25PR01528
   Petition to Transfer Real and Personal Property to Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED except that the request to issue an order with regard to the vehicle, described only by year and model, is DENIED without prejudice.  The requested order is not sufficiently particularized to be enforceable (a Vehicle Identification Number is not provided).  As it is subject to registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), absent this information, any order issued would not sufficiently identify the property, nor be useful at the DMV.  If petitioner has the necessary information (title or registration paperwork with the name of the decedent) they may file it as a verified supplement and request to appear at the hearing for the purpose of presenting it to the Court.  Otherwise, the Court will sign the Proposed Order lodged on December 31, 2025, but interlineate it to conform to the above ruling.

 

5. Matter of the Third Restatement of the Bill C. Coleman Trust
   26PR00007
   Petition to Confirm Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The examiner notes posted March 17, 2026 have not been addressed, and notice of this petition remains defective. However, the petition is DENIED on the merits for the reasons set forth below, so the examiner notes are moot.

The subject of this petition is real estate in Oregon. The petitioner asks the Court to transfer the property to the trust. This the Court cannot do. Courts of one state cannot make a decree which will operate to change or directly affect the title to real property beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Taylor v. Taylor (1923) 192 Cal. 71, 76. The doctrine that a court, not having jurisdiction of the res, cannot affect it by its decree is firmly established. Id. 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.

That said, by means of its power over the person of the parties before it, a court of equity may in proper cases compel them to act in relation to property not within the jurisdiction, but its decrees do not operate directly upon the property nor affect the title. Taylor v. Taylor (1923) 192 Cal. 71, 76. 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. Conservatorship of Hume (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 393, 406. At this time, the Court makes no determination whether the principle stated is applicable to this case, and the Court does not find that the petitioner seeks an order requiring the trustee to take action with respect to out of state real property. 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 deadline for further briefing. If the Court does so, petitioner must also cure the deficiencies identified in the probate examiner notes prior to any future hearing.

 

6. Matter of The Miles C. Pipal Trust
   26PR00008
   Petition for Reformation of Trust Based on Undue Influence, Lack of Capacity, and Mistake

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

     I.   Notice and procedural deficiencies

The petition is not verified as required by California Probate Code §1021(a)(1). No copy of the trust is attached to the petition as required by Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8(A). The notice of hearing does not state the title of the petition, as required by California Rules of Court Rule 7.50. The title of the petition does not clearly and completely identify the nature of the relief sought or granted, as required by California Rules of Court Rule 7.102. The respondents, Marion Hammos and Marlania Pipal, are entitled to notice in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the petition asserts fraud and elder abuse against them. Given the heightened protections of the Elder Abuse Act, parties should not be given fewer rights than those granted to litigants in other civil proceedings.  Conservatorship of Kayle (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1, 7. The petition does not state the names and addresses of each person entitled to notice and the petition does not state a basis for finding that venue is proper in Sonoma County. See California Probate Codes §§17201, 17002 and 17005.

     II.  The petition is time-barred

On its own motion, the Court takes judicial notice of the court record in SPR84309.  On November 17, 2016, a hearing was held for case number SPR84309. The petitioner was present at that hearing and was given an opportunity to be heard. At that hearing, the court authorized the trustee to sell the 3710 Bones Road property. Then, at the April 20, 2017 hearing, immediate final distribution of the trust res (other than a reserve) was ordered. If fraud, mistake, undue influence, and/or elder abuse occurred in relation to the disposition of the trust res, it would have occurred at the point of final distribution or before. Final distribution was to occur immediately per the April 20, 2017 ruling.

               a.  The petitioner fails to establish delayed discovery

The law is quite clear that the applicable period of limitations in a suit based on fraud or mistake or for reformation for constructive trust is three years from the time when the fraud or mistake was or should have been discovered. Getty v. Getty (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1159, 1168. The cause of action is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake. California Code of Civil Procedure § 338(d). As our Supreme Court has long held, under Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d), a plaintiff must affirmatively excuse her failure to discover the fraud within three years after it took place, by establishing facts showing that she was not negligent in failing to make the discovery sooner and that she had no actual or presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient to put her on inquiry. Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 537, 561–562.

In his declaration, the petitioner claims that he only became fully aware of the extent of the fraudulent conduct within the past approximately two years due to the concealment of facts and his medical condition. The fraudulent conduct is not described, and the reason for the late discovery of the fraudulent conduct is not well explained. What facts were concealed from the petitioner? How did the petitioner’s medical condition impact his ability to discovery the facts constituting the fraud or mistake? The facts as stated are not sufficient to carry the petitioner’s burden to show application of the delayed discovery rule.

               b.  The petitioner fails to establish good cause for equitable tolling

The petitioner argues for the application of equitable tolling. Equitable tolling today applies when three elements are present: (1) timely notice, and (2) lack of prejudice, to the defendant, and (3) reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff. Feliz v. County of Orange (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 927, 939. These requirements are designed to balance the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the operative limitations statute. Id. The party invoking equitable tolling bears the burden of proving its requirements. Id. The petitioner does not discuss these elements and makes no showing that the elements are met. The Court finds no basis to conclude that equitable tolling should apply.

               c.  The Court does not find that the petition should be allowed due to extrinsic fraud

The petitioner claims he was misled about a court appearance involving “final distribution” because he was told the proceedings would be in a different courthouse, and actions were taken in his absence wrongfully. Where a judgment has been obtained through extrinsic fraud it may be set aside, though long since final, by independent suit in equity. Lazzarone v. Bank of America (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 581, 595. Extrinsic fraud is a broad concept that tends to encompass almost any set of extrinsic circumstances which deprive a party of a fair adversary hearing. Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614. Extrinsic fraud occurs, for example, where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court. Id. The clearest examples of extrinsic fraud are cases in which the aggrieved party is kept in ignorance of the proceeding or is in some other way induced not to appear. Id.

With respect to any claim related to the appropriate disposition of the 3710 Bones Road property, the court ordered that the property could be sold by the trustee for $430,000.00 or more at the November 17, 2016 hearing in case number SPR84309. Per the official minutes, the petitioner was present at the November 17, 2016 hearing and was heard by the court. Extrinsic fraud did not deprive the petitioner from exhibiting fully his case with respect to the appropriate disposition of the 3710 Bones Road property because the petitioner was present and was heard by the Court at the November 17, 2016 hearing, when the proper disposition of the 3710 Bones Road property was decided. Further, the time and place for the April 20, 2017 hearing was set during the November 17, 2016 hearing, so the petitioner was on notice of the time and place of the April 20, 2017 hearing. The petitioner’s claim that he was “misled” into thinking that a hearing was occurring at a different courthouse is both insufficient to show extrinsic fraud and not credible given that he was present when the time and place for the April 20, 2017 hearing was set.

               d.  The petition is precluded by Res Judicata

Proper disposition of the trust res, including the Bones Road property, was passed upon in the interim and final orders made in SPR84309. Those orders were final and conclusive as to the disposition of the trust property and relitigating of that disposition by the instant petition is not allowable. See Lazzarone v. Bank of America (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 581, 595 [The probate court's orders settling the trustee's accounts and reports and discharging the trustee are entitled to res judicata effect unless they are vitiated by extrinsic fraud; an order settling a trustee's account, like an order settling the account of an executor or administrator, is conclusive as to all matters passed upon.]

               e.  Any lis pendens is ordered vacated forthwith

Finally, the Court notes it is in receipt of a notice of pendency of action.  The notice states an action is pending against parties that are not, in fact, named the petition filed in this matter.  The Court also observes that a self-represented litigant may not file a lis pendens absent an order of the Court allowing such a filing.  Code of Civil Procedure § 405.21. The Court has not been presented with such a request and has signed no such order in this case.  To the extent any lis pendens has been filed it is therefore ordered vacated forthwith.

 

7. Matter of the Lynn A. Anderson Family Trust
   26PR00010
   Petition for (1) Instructions to the Trustee; (2) An Order Determining Claim to Property; and (3) An Order Modifying an Irrevocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The petitioner is directed to lodge an updated proposed order that omits superfluous background information and argument that can be incorporated by reference to the petition.

The Court acknowledges and appreciates the clarification regarding the status of the first successor trustee, as discussed in the supplement filed March 18, 2026.

 

8. Matter of Michael J. Ford and Violet Ford Trust
   26PR00029
   Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The proof of service filed April 13, 2026 shows service as of the same date, which is less than 30 days prior to this hearing. This service is untimely pursuant to California Probate Code §§851 and 17203. Also, service to United Wholesale Mortgage LLC remains defective, as it was not served in the manner required by California Probate Code §851(a)(2).  The Court notes on April 29, 2026, it received a proof of personal service on Jessica Hurwitz, however that service was effected on April 21, 2026, which is less than 30 days prior to the hearing.  A court has no authority to shorten time for notice in connection with a Probate Code §850 petition and that service is untimely.  Probate Code §851(d).  However, the petition is DENIED on the merits, for the reasons set forth below, so the notice defects are moot.

California Evidence Code §662 codifies the form of title presumption, i.e. that the owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548, 556. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof. Id. A trust in relation to real property is not valid unless evidenced by a signed writing, as set forth at California Probate Code §15206. The petitioner fails to present clear and convincing proof, in the form of a signed writing, evidencing that the subject real estate is held in trust.

The pour-over will alone is not sufficient to support the petition. Where a pour-over will gives property to a trust, and the property is not otherwise made part of the trust res, the property cannot be simply transferred to the trust without probate administration. Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 743, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 23, 2019).

 

9. Matter of Patrick Michael Carr Trust
   26PR00031
   Petition for Order Recovering Property, Declaratory Relief, Accounting, and Imposition of Constructive Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to May 28, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 to trail the outcome of the Motion to Quash Service, etc. filed April 22, 2026.

 

10. Estate of Lennice Katherine Ambrose
    26PR00051
    First Amended and Verified Petition for Suspension of Powers and Replacement of Personal Representative with Fiduciary and for Surcharge for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and for Denial of Compensation from Estate

Tentative Ruling: The hearing is CONTINUED to May 14, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 to trail the outcome of the demurrer.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***