Skip to main content.

Conservatorships

If the tentative ruling does not require appearances, and is accepted, no appearance is necessary. 

Any party who wishes to be heard in response or opposition to the Court’s tentative ruling MUST NOTIFY the Court’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6893 and MUST NOTIFY all other parties of the intent to appear, and whether they will appear in person or by Zoom.  Both notifications must be completed no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court (business) day immediately before the day of the hearing.

Unless notification of an appearance has been given as provided above, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court the day of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar, absent an objection from an interested party per Probate Code section 1043.    

To Access the Probate Examiner Notes:

  • Access the Portal
  • Accept the Terms
  • Choose Smart Search, insert your case number, and follow all instructions.

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” Online

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” By Phone:

  • Call: +1 669-254-5252 US (San Jose) and enter the 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

March 13, 2026 at 9:30 a.m.

  1. Conservatorship of Samin Leak
    24PR00910
    Review

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Due to the death of the conservatee, the Conservatorship of the Person of Samin Leak TERMINATED by operation of law, pursuant to Probate Code section 1860(a).  The Court extends its condolences.

The case is DISMISSED.

 

  1. Conservatorship of John Kenneth Lavell
    26PR00028
    Appointment of Conservator

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  Petitioner has not filed a Confidential Capacity Assessment and Declaration, as required. The Office of the Court Investigator cannot begin its investigation without this document.  The service of the citation on someone other than the proposed conservatee is also insufficient.

Additionally, as objections have been filed, this matter is CONTINUED to April 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12. Pursuant to local rule 6.2 (F)(2), the parties are directed to meet and confer and make a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the controversy at a face-to-face conference (which is deemed to include video platforms such as Zoom), if possible, otherwise by telephone conference. If the matter has not resolved, the parties shall each file statements of issues no later than seven (7) court days before the continued hearing date pursuant to Local Rule 6.2 (F)(3). This meet and confer requirement shall not extend to require the proposed conservatee to participate in the discussions, but they should include his counsel.

To inform the discussion of the parties, the Court would note the following:

-The supplemental information filed confidentially was also filed as a public document, completely defeating the ability to retain some privacy for the proposed conservatee in the public record.

-The supplemental information contains what appears to be statements inconsistent with the prior court proceedings related to the proposed conservatee.  For example, the petition implies the restraining orders in case 25CV03270, and 25CV04217 were a result of some sort of default order by the Court based only on allegations in the pleadings of one side:

Ocana threatened Petitioner's sisters that if Ken's family fought her authority as fiduciary over Ken and his affairs, that they would hire Chris Andrian and file charges of kidnapping against Petitioner's sisters for having Ken stay with them. This action was in fact taken and unfortunately the Court relied on Ocana's moving papers, did not permit evidence to be entered to the contrary, and filed restraining orders against Petitioner's sisters.

In fact, the restraining orders were imposed as a result of a stipulated settlement agreement after days of trial and receipt of evidence. Petitioner’s counsel is cautioned that in functioning as a member of the bar it is incumbent on her to be accurate in her pleadings, and not to function merely as a conduit for whatever assertions her client may want to make regardless of objective facts.

-The petition appears to seek to give effect to estate documents created by the proposed conservatee in or around May 2025:

“Proposed conservatee has further elicited his wishes via new durable power of attorney and advanced healthcare directive documents, as well as a new Trust and Last Will and Testament, to have certain family members become his agent, in charge of his person and estate.”

This date is after the April 2025 report of Dr. Hoffman that concluded that the proposed conservatee lacked testamentary capacity and was vulnerable to undue influence.  The Court presumes the petitioner does not rely on this report as it is inconsistent with the above claims.  Does Petitioner intend to produce a capacity declaration that establishes in the time between the assessment by Dr. Hoffman and the execution of the “new” estate documents the proposed conservatee was competent?  Either by regaining competence or by disputing the findings of Dr. Hoffman?  Either way, given the claims regarding the “new” estate documents the Court presumes petitioner does not rely on the assessment of Dr. Hoffman.  And since a conservatorship is now sought, does Petitioner now intend to offer a second capacity declaration to establish that the proposed conservatee lost capacity after the execution of the “new” estate documents?  This would certainly be necessary for there to be any basis for a conservatorship.

-Finally, the Court questions whether there can be any basis for it to impose a conservatorship where there is a less restrictive method to assist and protect the proposed conservatee in place and functioning?  One created by the proposed conservatee.  Does petitioner have to seek to remove the trustee in the trust action first?  Should this matter be stayed pending such an effort?  Certainly, some of the alleged conduct could amount to a breach of fiduciary duty.  If proven.  But until the existing estate documents created by the proposed conservatee before April 2025 are found invalid, or the trustee removed, the Court does not see how it can impose a conservatorship despite their existence.  The issues related to the invalidation of such estate documents are beyond the scope of this conservatorship proceeding.

The Court understands this matter is at its nascent pleading stage and the above observations are not intended to convey dispositive views on any matter.  But the Court also appreciates that some water has passed beneath this bridge and it is not inclined to ignore that context, which the some of the supplemental information provided by petitioner would seem to invite the Court to do.
 

           

  1. Conservatorship of Gladys Gerber
    SPR75395
    Status Update

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The conservatorship shall continue without modification.

The matter is SET on Friday, November 5, 2027, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12, for the biennial review and report of the court investigator.

The court investigator assessment of $600.00 is waived pursuant to the Order Granting Request to Waive Court Fees, filed on March 2, 2026.

 

  1. Conservatorship of Joshua Ostrand
    SPR096379
    Account & Report

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  In light of the recently filed documents, in response to the Report of Court Investigator filed on March 2, 2026, the Court wishes to determine whether counsel for the conservatee wishes to waive any notice defect, or not.  If counsel for the conservatee wishes to have the matter continued for further review, the Court will accommodate that request.  If counsel waives any notice defect, and absent objections, the Court would instead rule as follows:

The Court is satisfied with the explanations provided by the conservator in the declaration filed March 6, 2026, in response to the court investigator’s report in that the payments were made for the period in question and are confirmed to have not been made by the conservator from the conservatee’s estate.

The Third Account and Report of Conservator is APPROVED.

Conservator’s request for fees is approved as prayed.

Attorney’s request for fees and reimbursement of costs advanced is approved as prayed.

Attorney’s request for fees for legal services related to the Trust matter, are approved as prayed.

Bond is increased to $1,027,000.00.

Conservator is directed to pay the court investigator assessment of $600.00 within 30 days, payable to the Sonoma County Superior Court, in care of the Probate Division. Please include the case number and name of the conservatorship.

The matter is SET on the January 6, 2028, case management conference calendar, at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12, for status of account. If the Fourth Account and Report of Conservator is filed at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, no appearances shall be required.

 

***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?