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

December 5, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Richard B Iverson Trust
    25PR00371
    Petition for Order (1) Determining Existence and Validity of Trust Instrument; (2) Determining Construction of Trust Instrument; (3) Determining Assets Subject to the Trust; (4) Ascertaining Beneficiaries and Determining to whom Property Shall Pass; (5) Appointing Trustee and Granting Powers to Trustee

Tentative Ruling: This matter was dismissed without prejudice on December 3, 2025. Therefore, this matter is DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Matter of The Robert & Carole Bender Family Trust
    25PR00977
    Petition for Instructions

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to April 3, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to address the Court’s concerns, noted below.

Donald B. Kobrin, a named successor co-trustee of the family trust, is not served. The petitioner must timely serve code compliant notice of this petition to Donald B. Korbin and file proof of service in advance of the continued hearing.

Also, the petition does not address the issue of who is the rightful trustee(s) of the family trust and, if created, the exemption trust, if the amendments are deemed applicable only to the survivor’s trust. The petitioner may address this issue by verified supplement filed and served at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing.

 

  1. Matter of Naomi Weinstein Trust
    25PR01006
    Petition Concerning Internal Affairs Of Trust And For: (1) Contest Of Fifth Amendment To Trust Dated January 6, 2025; (2) Contest Of Death-Bed Amendment To Trust Dated April 22, 2025; (3) Compensatory And Punitive Damages For Elder Abuse; (4) Compensatory And Punitive Damages For Financial Elder Abuse; (5) Determination Of Ownership Of Property Under Probate Code Section 850 And For Statutory Double Damages Under Probate Code Section 859; (6) For Reasonable Attorney Fees And Costs.

Tentative Ruling: The hearing is CONTINUED to April 3, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 for the reasons set forth below.

On September 2, 2025 David L. Montgomery filed his Petition Concerning Internal Affairs of Trust, etc. On Novembre 26, 2025, Tobe B. Bassior filed his opposition to said petition. 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 in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing.

The asset at issue here is a Chase Bank account. However, Chase Bank, the entity in possession of the account, has not been served as required by California Probate Code §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.)

 

  1. Matter of The Fomasi Family Trust
    25PR01022
    Petition for Order Determining Title to Personal Property and for Delivery of Personal Property

Tentative Ruling: The hearing is CONTINUED to March 27, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to address the Court’s concerns, noted below.

  1. The asset described in the notice of hearing is not the asset at issue in this case, thus the notice of hearing is defective pursuant to California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §851(c)(1).
  2. Counsel’s state bar number is listed incorrectly on the Notice of Hearing form.
  3. The proof of personal service to LPL Financial filed September 24, 2025 does not show service of the notice of hearing. See Prob C §851(a).
  4. The proof of personal service to Redwood Credit Union filed September 25, 2025 does not show service of the notice of hearing. See Prob C §851(a).
  5. No copy of the subject trust is provided, so the Court cannot determine the trustee and beneficiaries entitled to notice of this petition.

Also, federal law governing IRAs prohibits trusts from holding an IRA. Reich v. Reich (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1282, 1291. The Court notes that granting a petition pursuant to Prob C §850 could result in negative tax consequences based on the nature of the asset at issue here.  The Court is instead inclined to treat this as a petition to order the institution to pay the proceeds of the accounts to the trustee, as if the trust had been properly named a pay on death beneficiary.  If the petitioner actually wants an order declaring the assets to be property of the trust, they are advised that would mean the Court is in effect ordering that at some time in the past, either upon the date of the creation of the trust, or, if funded later, the creation of the accounts, the ownership of the accounts were transferred from the individual owner (the settlor) to the trust. This could result in an undesirable outcome with regard to tax liability.

The Court is not averse to making an order that the trust is in effect the beneficiary of the accounts, particularly in the absence of any opposition, and if there is no difference between heirs of the trust and heirs of a probate estate. If the petitioner decides to proceed in this manner, they must so indicate via a verified supplement that provides legal authority for this approach, even if it is only the equitable power of the Court. Said supplement shall be served and filed at least 10 days prior to the continued hearing. The petitioner must also lodge an updated proposed order stating that the Court is not declaring the assets to have been placed in trust in the past (as it would with a Prob C §850 Petition) but only directing the payment of funds now.

Finally, the Court notes that the proposed order indicates a finding of elder abuse, seeks a civil penalty, and requests attorney’s fees and costs of suit. These requests are outside the scope of the petition title and thus are not properly before the Court. See California Rule of Court Rule 7.102. Any request for an award of costs of suit or attorney’s fees must be by noticed motion.

 

  1. Matter of The Lynn H. Stevenson Trust
    25PR01023
    Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee and to Set Bond

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to January 23, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 at the request of the petitioner.

 

  1. Guardianship of Ariana Garcia
    SPR80902
    Seventh and Final Account and Report of Former Trustee               

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below.

The petition is GRANTED as to proposed orders number 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Proposed order number 3, pertaining to increase in bond amount, is DENIED. The Court will take up the issue of bond for this trust in the context of the present trustee’s first account and report, filed September 30, 2025, and on for hearing January 16, 2026.

The Court will sign the proposed order lodged September 5, 2025 but will strike proposed order number 3.

The Probate Court’s review of this 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.

 

  1. Matter of Eduard Nicolass Theodorus Muller SNT
    SPR88845
    First Account and Report by Trustee, and Petition for Resignation of Trustee and Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged September 3, 2025.

The Probate Court’s review of the account and report for this 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 requirements have been met.

 

***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?