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 Join Department 23 “Zoom” Online

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.

Tentative Rulings

Hon. Jennifer V. Dollard
May 17, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Matter of the Peter H. Van Auken Living Trust Dated December 18, 2018
    23PR00089
    Petition for Order to Confirm Validity of Trust; Confirm Trustee; and Confirm Assets to Revocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted September 25, 2023.

 

  1. Matter of Elfego Vallejo Family Trust Dated March 25, 2016
    23PR00349
    Petition to Determine Ownership of Estate Property and for Order Authorizing and Directing Trustee to Transfer Estate Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted December 7, 2023.

 

  1. Matter of Carrol B. Harville Trust
    24PR00178
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Asset and Successor Trustee Authority

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to August 30, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to cure the notice/service defects noted below. The petitioner is ordered to provide code-compliant notice to all necessary parties and file updated proof(s) of service in advance of the continued hearing date.

Use of the DE-115 notice of hearing form is mandatory in the context of this California Probate Code §850 petition. The DE-120 form, the wrong notice of hearing form, was used here.

California Probate Code §851(b) requires the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition to be served to necessary parties. Here, while there is proof of service of the notice of hearing, there is no proof of service of a copy of the petition in the Court’s file.

The Court finds that the two persons entitled to notice of this proceeding are the petitioner and John C. Harville. If the petitioner wishes to avoid the continuance and can obtain waiver of notice and consent from John C. Harville, they may file it prior to the hearing and request to appear at the hearing in accordance with local rules to present the waiver to the Court.  The Court would then be inclined to grant the petition.
 

  1. Matter of Victor H. Mayer Trust
    24PR00181
    Petition for Order Confirming Successor Trustee and Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. Petitioner is directed to submit a revised proposed order after hearing that incorporates the items from paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the response filed by Merrill Lynch on May 14, 2024.

 

  1.  Matter of Mary Ellen O'Banion Trust
    24PR00185
    Petition to Enforce Money Judgment Against Trust Beneficiary; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; And Proposed Order

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to September 6, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 23 for the reasons set forth below.

The Court may consider appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Sky Daniel O’Banion (“Sky”) if his address or location remains unknown once all reasonable efforts to locate him have been exhausted.  Otherwise, the Court finds it premature to do so now.  Should appointment become necessary, the Court notes no Guardian Ad Litem is nominated in the papers, and no individual is identified as being willing to accept appointment.  The Court does not maintain a list of potential candidates for such appointment.  Should further attempts to locate Sky be unsuccessful, any future supplement should address the above information necessary for the Court to make a GAL appointment.

Regarding Sky Daniel O’Banion’s daughters, to the extent they have an interest in DCSS prevailing here, their interest is well represented. To the extent they have an interest in the trust funds passing to a special needs trust for Sky under which they would be remainder beneficiaries, it seems their interest would be adequately represented by a Guardian Ad Litem for Sky (or possibly Sky himself if he participates in this proceeding,) as Sky’s interest is to have the largest possible amount of trust funds pass to a Special Needs Trust for his own benefit.

Regarding service to Sky, the parties agree he has not been served with the petition or the response, and likely has no notice that this proceeding is taking place. The parties suggest that more time will be needed to serve the petition and response to Sky. It seems Sky’s address is presently unknown. Pursuant to Prob C §1212, unless the court dispenses with the notice, if the address of the person to whom a notice or other paper is required to be delivered pursuant to Section 1215 is not known, notice shall be given as the court may require in the manner provided in Section 413.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court hereby requires that Sky be served in any manner that is allowed for the service of a summons pursuant to 415.10 et seq.

As this petition is now contested, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with Sonoma County Local Rule 6.2.F.2 and file Statements of Issues in compliance with Sonoma County Local Rule 6.2.F.3 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

 

  1. Matter of Jonathan B. Grossman Revocable Trust
    24PR00194
    Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee of the Jonathan B. Grossman Revocable Trust, Dated July 23, 1993

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence establishing the existence and validity of the Jonathan B. Grossman Revocable Trust, dated July 23, 1993. Specifically, the petitioner fails to establish that the trust has a beneficiary and fails to establish the purpose of the trust. The five elements required to create an express trust are (1) a competent trustor, (2) trust intent, (3) trust property, (4) trust purpose, and (5) a beneficiary. Keitel v. Heubel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 324, 337. A declaration of trust, whether written or oral, must be reasonably certain in its material terms. If the language is so vague, general, or equivocal that any of the necessary elements of the trust is left in real uncertainty, then the trust must fail. Lane v. Whitaker (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 327, 331.

That the petitioner asserts her intention is to have the trust property pass through intestacy further supports the position that there is no beneficiary. Also, if the settlor (and after his death, his estate) was the only beneficiary of the trust, the trust would have terminated by operation of law under the doctrine of merger. Weinberger v. Morris (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1021.

Given the evidence presently before the Court, the Court finds that the trust fails. Given the finding of the Los Angeles Superior Court that settlor died intestate, the property should pass via intestate succession. California Probate Code §7000.

 

  1. Matter of Mark Eugune Warner
    24PR00219
    Petition for Partcular Transactions

Tentative Ruling: The Petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted April 5, 2024.

 

8., 9. & 10. Matter of Elmore Living Trust est. April 29, 1992
                        SPR097053 (Related estate case Estate of Scott Kenneth Elmore SPR096438)

Petition To Confirm Assets Of The Estate; For Double Damages; To Instruct Trustee To Make Distributions To The Estate Of Deceased Beneficiary; For Suspension And Removal Of Dale Robert Elmore As Trustee Of The Elmore Living Trust; For Appointment of Successor Trustee; For an Accounting; And For Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Filed October 7, 2022.)

Petition to Confirm Assets of the Estate; For Double Damages; For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; and Application for Writ of Possession (Filed February 26, 2024.)

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Court is inclined to bifurcate the issue of whether 711 Brigham Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA should be confirmed as a trust asset.  The Court will set a trial date on that sole issue and try that matter first.  As to the request for a writ of possession, no authority is cited by Petitioner, and the Court is aware of none, that would allow a court to issue one under the facts presented here.  Rather, the Trust must first obtain title to the asset and then proceed with a civil action, such as an unlawful detainer, to recovery possession of the real property, if possession is not voluntarily restored.  The additional reason bifurcation is necessary in the Court’s view is that damages, which may be awarded in connection with the other claims, cannot be determined until the issue of whether the real property is an asset of the trust is resolved, and the asset is valued, likely through sale.  Whether the property is a trust asset is a very discrete issue and severance and trial of it first is likely to be judicially economical and clarify and narrow the issues for trial that remain. The Court would expect trial on the issue would be very short.

Counsel for the parties should be prepared to discuss trial availability and estimates for length of trial on the severed issue. The related estate case, SPR096438, will continue to trail the trust case.

All other issues raised in the petitions of Margie Gernal (filed October 7, 2022, and February 26, 2024), will be tried at a later date, after ownership of the trust asset is determined.  Those issues, which will trail, are (1) The dollar amount that should be disgorged from Dale Robert Elmore and Daniel Warren Elmore and returned to the Trust; (2) Whether damages in accordance with California Probate Code 859 are appropriate and if so, as to which property, and in what specific amount; and (3) Who shall bear the attorneys’ fees and costs, and in what amount.

 

***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?