Probate Law & Motion

Advisements

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 3:15 p.m. on the day of the hearing. 

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” Online

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1603772262
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 377 2262
• And Password: 419097

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.

1. Matter of the Rural Adventure Private Trust Dated October 30, 2020 Trust
   24PR00887
   Motion to Enforce Existing Confidentiality Orders and for Remedial Relief

Tentative Ruling: The motion is GRANTED. Jane Doe is directed to submit an updated proposed order identifying the documents to be sealed by filing date, document title, and exhibit title. To the extent a party wishes to re-submit for filing those documents that are now sealed, they may do so, with appropriate redactions, in accordance the Court’s November 6, 2024 and November 18, 2024 orders.

2. Matter of Carolyn Ann Irwin Trust
   25PR00985
   Demurrer to Maureen Cook Schwinn’s Petition to Determine Validity of the Carolyn Ann Irwin Living Trust Dated August 4, 2020

Tentative Ruling: All of the movant’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. For those documents that contain hearsay or otherwise contain disputable facts, even those that are part of the court record or are recorded with the county recorder’s office, the existence of those documents is noticed but the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the contents of the documents are not noticed. As for orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments, the court takes judicial notice of the existence of those documents, as well as the truth of facts asserted in those documents. See Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 904, 914.

The demurrer is OVERRULED. When a demurrer or pretrial motion to dismiss challenges a petition on standing grounds, the court may not simply assume the allegations supporting standing lack merit and dismiss the complaint. Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, 827. Instead, the court must first determine standing by treating the properly pled allegations as true. Id. Here, the petitioner claims the August 2020 trust is invalid because of incapacity and undue influence. The petitioner claims the April 2020 will governs the disposition of the estate. The petitioner claims she will be a beneficiary of the estate if the trust is invalidated and the will is given effect. Taking these allegations as true, the petitioner is an interested person and has standing to bring the petition to invalidate the trust based on undue influence and incapacity. Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, 828; Hamlin v. Jendayi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1064, 1074–1075, as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 12, 2024), review denied (Jan. 15, 2025), cert. denied (2025) 146 S.Ct. 120.

As for the Elder Abuse claim, the respondent cannot be expected to bring an elder abuse lawsuit against himself. See Estate of Lowrie (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 220, 231. Therefore, the petitioner, the named executor and 50% remainder beneficiary of all the decedent’s monetary assets under a will the petitioner claims to be the only effective estate plan, has standing to bring the elder abuse claim if she constitutes an “interested person.” See California Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657.3(d)(1)(C) & (d)(2). In probate proceedings, an interested person is a person that has an interest of some sort that may be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding at issue. Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 728. In the context of an elder abuse lawsuit, to have standing as an interested person, one must have a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding. Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 732; California Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657.3(d)(1)(C) & (d)(2); California Probate Code §48(a)(1). As the petitioner would have an interest in the residue of the decedent’s monetary assets should the trust be invalidated and the will be upheld, she has a direct interest in any California Probate Code §859 damages or other damages that would be achieved as a result of the elder abuse claim. The petition, at paragraph 24, specifically alleges that the respondents are subject to the remedies provided in California Probate Code §859. Therefore, the petitioner has a property right in or claim against the estate which may be affected by the elder abuse action, and thus has standing. See Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 728. One has standing to pursue elder abuse claims where she would become the person entitled to succeed to the proceeds of the elder abuse claims if she prevails on her claims. See Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 732. Therefore, the petitioner is an interested person with standing to bring the elder abuse claim pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code §15657.3(d)(C) and California Probate Code §48.

As discussed in the Court’s February 11, 2026 ruling, the petitioner’s standing as to all claims in her October 27, 2025 petition depends on the validity of the April 2020 will.  If the April 2020 will is not effective, the petitioner’s standing to bring the trust petition may be defeated. The issue of the effectiveness of April 2020 will is presently being litigated in this court under case number 25PR00478, and per the most recent ruling in that case, will be set for trial at the next hearing. The balance of the issues in the probate case and this trust case will trail the outcome of that trial.

***End of Tentative Rulings***