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

October 17, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 

  1. Casciani vs. Casciani
    23CV00357
    First Amended Complaint, Petition for Order That Power of Attorney is Revoked or Terminated

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to February 6, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the parties an opportunity to address the Court’s concerns, noted below.

The First Amended Complaint does not include a code compliant verification. California Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5. Substantial compliance with the verification statute is insufficient.  See Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp., (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601.

As the principal is deceased, the DPOA is terminated. California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §4152(a)(4). Therefore, the only issue raised by the First Amended Complaint that is still active is the request that the Court appoint an “auditor” to evaluate the “Donna Nolan” accounting expenditures and reimburse the estate as necessary. The remedy requested is not one normally ordered by a court.  Since August 2024, no further update has been filed on this request. The case management statements filed since then indicate some informal exchange of information, as well as formal discovery, have occurred. It is not clear to the Court whether the plaintiff still seeks the “audit” requested in the First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff must file and serve a case management conference statement at least ten days prior to the continued hearing which addresses the status of the First Amended Complaint and the claims therein. If the plaintiff continues to maintain that he wants an “audit” of the “Donna Nolan” accounting, the plaintiff must also file and serve a supplement citing the legal authority for the remedy requested and proposed practical methods for implementing it, such as the method for nomination of a qualified “auditor,” required qualifications of an “auditor,” scope of work for the “auditor,” whether the findings, if any, will be binding or advisory, how the cost of the “auditor” will be allocated and paid, etc.  If no case management statement is timely filed and served by the petitioner, the Court will presume the petitioner no longer seeks this remedy.  In that case, the question before the parties and the Court will be whether any claim from the First Amended Complaint remain to be litigated.

As for the Objection to Notice of Proposed Action filed August 15, 2025, it does not procedurally bring any issues before the Court absent a formal petition. See Prob C §§10586-10587. And as this is a civil case, limited to the single pleading of one party, and not a probate case where multiple pleadings may be filed, any such petition should be filed in a probate action, which can then be related to this matter, if necessary.  Presently, the issue discussed in the Objection to Notice of Proposed Action filed August 15, 2025, is not properly before the Court.

 

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

Tentative Ruling: By order dated October 13, 2025, this matter was continued by the Court to January 30, 2026, based on the parties’ stipulation.  Matter is DROPPED from calendar.   
 

  1. Matter of Barbara Sesnon Cartan Trusts FBO Henry Carton IV et al.
    25PR00504
    Petition for Order Approving the Appointment of a Successor Independent Trustee

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to February 6, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to address the Court’s concern, noted below.

The petition, at paragraph 8, refers to a 2021 order of the Superior Court of California County of San Francisco, which is said to be attached as “Exhibit E.” Said order is not attached to the petition, as noted by this Court’s July 25, 2025 ruling. The supplement filed September 29, 2025, also at paragraph 8, indicates the missing exhibit is attached thereto, but again, it is not. The attachment supplied is not the order referenced.

The petitioner may file the missing exhibit in advance of the hearing and request to appear at the hearing (in accordance with all local rules) to present the exhibit to the Court, potentially avoiding the continuance.  In that case, and in the absence of objections and presuming the exhibit is as represented, the Court would grant the petition.
 

  1. Matter of The Francoise E. Grandi Revocable Living Trust
    25PR00741
    Petition for Order Confirming Property Part of Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The sole evidence offered by petitioner that the settlor intended omitted property to be property of the trust is the pour over will.  Petitioner argues the settlor evidenced this intent to have the property become part of the trust though a pour over will that indicates that all property is to become part of the Trust.  This makes perfect sense to this Court.  The intent of the settlor about where all of their property should wind up could not be more clear given this estate plan.  However, there exists the issue of this Court’s obedience to legal precedence, here in the form of Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 743-744.  That opinion holds that where a will gives property to a trust, and the property is not otherwise made an asset of the trust, the property is subject to probate administration.  Accordingly, this Court must find that the petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that the asset at issue is held in trust.
 

 

  1. Matter of Patricia Kay Curtis Revocable Living Trust
    25PR00802
    Petition to Transfer Assets to Trust

Tentative Ruling: The Petition is GRANTED as to the request to transfer the real property and “everything on or in” the real property.  The request to issue an order with regard to vehicles, described only by year and model, is DENIED without prejudice.  The requested order is not sufficiently particularized to be enforceable (no Vehicle Identification Numbers are provided).  As they are 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 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 July 15, 2025, but interlineate it to conform to the above ruling.
 

  1. Matter of The Steckler Kelly Family Trust
    25PR00806
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to January 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to cure the notice defect described below.

The asset at issue is an E*Trade Account. E*Trade, the entity in possession of the account, has not been served as required by California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §851(a)(2). The proof of service filed September 19, 2025 shows service by mail only, which is not sufficient pursuant to Prob C §851(a)(2). As stated in the probate examiner notes posted September 4, 2025, 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.)
 

  1. Matter of John E. Harrington Trust
    25PR00814
    Petition for Court Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The sole evidence offered by petitioner that the settlor intended omitted property to be property of the trust is the pour over will.  Petitioner argues the settlor evidenced this intent to have the property become part of the trust though a pour over will that indicates that all property is to become part of the Trust.  This makes perfect sense to this Court.  The intent of the settlor about where all of their property should wind up could not be more clear given this estate plan.  However, there exists the issue of this Court’s obedience to legal precedence, here in the form of Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 743-744.  That opinion holds that where a will gives property to a trust, and the property is not otherwise made an asset of the trust, the property is subject to probate administration.  Accordingly, this Court must find that the petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that the assets at issue are held in trust.
 

  1. Matter of Kenneth M. Sheffield 2005 Trust FBO Matthew K. Sheffield
    25PR00820
    Petition to Accept Resignation of Trustee, Appoint Successor Trustee, and Approval of Accounting

Tentative Ruling: The Petition is GRANTED. Bond is set at $472,432.00.  The Court will sign the Proposed Order lodged on July 22, 2025. Assets must be delivered within 30 days of the Court signing the order. 

 

**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?