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 23 “Zoom” Online

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1608254529
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 825 4529
• And Password: 611386

To Join Department 23 “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 23:

• 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 the Leroy Martinelli Trust
   24PR00433
   Petition for Order Determining Validity of Trust Amendments

Tentative Ruling: Per the recently filed statements of issues, the parties are working to resolve certain aspects of the case informally and are open to mediation and settlement. The petitioners indicate more time is needed to complete discovery prior to mediation. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to February 21, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12. The parties are ordered to continue their meet and confer efforts in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3. Any request for a Breslin mediation order must be by noticed motion.

The Court notes that Vicki Martinelli filed a response in this case on September 3, 2024, and is now represented by Philip J. Terry, Esq. of Carle, Mackie, Power & Ross LLP.

2. Matter of Eugene M Graczyk Trust
   24PR00556
   Petition for Court Order Authorizing Transfer of Investments Held in Trustor's Name to Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged June 12, 2024.

The Court directs the counsel’s attention to California Rule of Court rule 1.201(a), which states in part: “If financial account numbers are required in a pleading or other paper filed in the public file, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used.” Any future filings should comply with this rule.

3. Matter of the Muriel Barkell Living Trust
   24PR00753
   Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged August 12, 2024.

4. Matter of Dennis John Parrish Living Trust Dated 2/13/2008
   24PR00754
   Petition for Order Confirming Assets in Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged August 12, 2024, but will strike proposed order number 3 as it is beyond the scope of the petition.

5. Matter of Raffo Family Revocable Trust
   24PR00793
   Petition to Modify Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged August 26, 2024.

6. Matter of Roy George Madden, Marian Louise Madden Trust
   24PR00803
   Petition for Trust Accounting, Instructions, and Removal of Trustee

Tentative Ruling: This matter has been CONTINUED to February 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 by stipulation of the parties.

7. Matter of the Angelo Lugo-Garcia SNT
   SPR84354
   Petition to Approve Seventh Account and Report of Trustee from 04/01/2022 through 03/31/2024, and to Approve Trustee's and Attorney's Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged August 7, 2024.

The Court directs counsel’s attention to Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8.A, which requires all petitions filed pursuant to Division 9 of the Probate Code to include a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, etc. While the Court has referred to a copy of the trust it located in its file, counsel should ensure that all future filings comply with this rule.

The Probate Court’s review of this Special Needs Trust DOES NOT Guarantee Medi-Cal Eligibility or any other Public Benefits provided by any governmental entity. The Probate Court DOES NOT Guarantee that all Federal and State requirement have been met.

8. Conservatorship of Edward George Ottoboni
   SPR092041
   Fourth Account and Report of Trustee and Petition for Its Settlement and for Allowance of Trustee’s Fees and Attorney’s Fees, and for Reduction of Bond

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged August 11, 2024.

The Court directs counsel’s attention to Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8.A, which requires all petitions filed pursuant to Division 9 of the Probate Code to include a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, etc. While the Court has referred to a copy of the trust it located in its file, counsel should ensure that all future filings comply with this rule.

9. Mellinger Family Trust
   SPR095509
   Petition Against the Trustee for Breaches of Trust and for Orders To: (1) Compel Accounting for Court Review, (2) Remove or Suspend Trustee, (3) Appointment of a Successor Trustee and/or Interim Successor Trustee, (4) Consideration of a Surcharge of Trustee and to Hold Trustee Personally Liable for Potential Accounting Issues; (5) For Instructions to Trustee

Tentative Ruling: APPERANCES REQUIRED. This matter was continued from August 23, 2024 to allow the parties additional time to resolve the dispute informally. No updated statements of issues have been filed and no other update has otherwise been provided. The Court requires appearances to discuss the status of the accounting and how the case will proceed generally. Counsel should be prepared with estimates for length of trial and trial availability should the Court determine that trial setting is appropriate.

10. Matter of Danny Rivera Trust
    SPR097886
    Petition for Instructions and to Approve Accounting

Tentative Ruling: The petition for instructions is DENIED. It is not possible to determine whether quarterly reports will satisfy the duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed, because it is not possible to know what will need to be reported in the future and whether quarterly reports will include the necessary information and be of sufficient frequency. Whether the quarterly report would satisfy the duty depends on what is reported and what should be reported at any given time. The Court cannot determine that the quarterly reports will always satisfy California Probate Code §16060 for the remainder of the trust administration. Furthermore, the Court will not order that the mere furnishing of the report satisfies the trustee’s duty. See Leader v. Cords (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1588, 1598. Therefore, the petition for instructions is denied. The Court does not consider additional requests for instructions contained solely in the recently filed statements of issues to be properly before the Court.

Regarding approval of the account, the matter is CONTINUED to February 21, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12, to allow the parties an opportunity to cure the notice/service defects mentioned below and, as this matter is now contested, to allow the parties an opportunity to comply with local rules 6.2.F.2 and 6.2.F.3.

Per the proof of service associated with the petition, Lorene Rivera is served care of counsel only, which is not in compliance with California Rules of Court rules 7.51(a)(2) and 7.51(b) and California Probate Code §1214. The petitioner is ordered to cure this defect absent a waiver of further notice. As both Monica Rivera and Renee Rivera have generally appeared in connection with the present petition by filing responses, the Court finds no further notice of the petition to them is due.

The proof of service associated with Monica Rivera’s response indicates electronic service only to Daniel Wilson, counsel of record for Lorene Rivera, but lists an email address for the trustee’s counsel. It is not clear to the Court that the trustee has been served with the response (see trustee’s November 15, 2024 filed Statement of Issues at paragraph 11.) The Court orders Monica Rivera to serve her response to the trustee, to Renee Rivera, and to Lorene Rivera, individually and through counsel, unless such service is waived.

The proof of service associated with Renee Rivera’s response shows the trustee and Lorene Rivera are served care of counsel only, which is not in compliance with California Probate Code §1214. Renee Rivera is ordered to cure this defect absent a waiver of further notice.

As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues at least seven (7) court days prior to the continued hearing date in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3.

In meeting and conferring the parties should consider that the Court will generally not interfere with the trustee's exercise of discretion unless the trustee acts dishonestly, with an improper motive, or fails to use reasonable judgment. The court's role is to ensure the trustee's actions are within the bounds of reasonable judgment and consistent with the trust's terms. Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1209. The mere fact that if the discretion had been conferred upon the court, the court would have exercised the power differently, is not a sufficient reason for interfering with the exercise of the power by the trustee. Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1209.

The Court also notes that Renee Rivera’s response to this petition seeks numerous items of affirmative relief that are not properly raised by her responsive pleading. See California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30 and California Probate Code §1000(a). The issues of removal and replacement of the trustee, breach of trust, and other affirmative relief requested in Renee Rivera’s November 20, 2024 response are not properly before the Court.

The Court directs counsel’s attention to Sonoma County Local Rule 6.8.A, which requires all petitions filed pursuant to Division 9 of the Probate Code to include a copy of the entire trust instrument(s) relevant to the action, etc. While the Court has referred to a copy of the trust it located in its file, counsel should ensure that all future filings comply with this rule.

***End of Tentative Rulings***