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 63 “Zoom” Online

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

To Join Department 63 “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 63:

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

August 28, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

Matter of The Tardibuono Family Trust
26PR00122
Petition for Assignment of Promissory Notes and Deeds of Trust or, in the Alternative, Assignment of Payments Due

Tentative Ruling: APPERANCES REQUIRED. The Court will discuss the request to set an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Lynn Tardibuono’s separate property. However, the parties are advised that the Court is not inclined to set an evidentiary hearing in the absence of an offer of proof from Respondent, or an indication from Petitioner, that discovery has been provided demonstrating at least a prima facie case that the assets at issue, or some of them, are her separate property. Upon such a showing, the Court is inclined to leave the preliminary injunction in place and set the trust petition for trial. In the absence of even a prima facie showing/offer of proof from Respondent, the Court is inclined to find there are no factual disputes requiring an evidentiary hearing for resolution and to grant the petition.

The Court also notes Respondent’s verified objections were due no later than 10 days before the August 28, 2026 hearing. (See Minute Order dated May 22, 2026.) Respondent filed his objections nine days before the August 28th hearing on August 19, 2026. Thus, Respondent’s objections are untimely. However, there is no apparent prejudice to Petitioners arising from the one-day delay. In the interest of justice and deciding cases on their merits, the Court will consider Respondent’s untimely objections.

The Court’s ruling on Respondent’s objections to the Petition for Assignment are OVERRULED. Respondent cites no legal authority supporting his objections. Objection Nos. 1, 2, and 3 do not address the admissibility evidence but instead generally challenge Petitioners’ arguments and alleged misrepresentations made in the Petition. (See Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 767, FN8.) Objection No. 4 states that Petitioners rely on improperly disclosed financial information subject to a Stipulation re Confidentiality. Respondent has neither moved this Court for a protective order nor shown the Court that Petitioners refuse to stipulate to a protective order. Objection No 5. similarly states that Petitioners have improperly disclosed medical information subject to a sealing order entered by the Marin County Superior Court. If correct, a remedy should be pursued in the Marin Court. However, this Court has not ordered any records to be sealed, Respondent has not filed a motion for a sealing order in this Court, and Respondent fails to provide any legal authority that would bind Petitioners in this Court to a sealing order issued by another trial court in a related but different case.

Matter of The Jeffrey S. Morgan Living Trust dated August 29, 2007
26PR00173
Petition for Order Confirming Title to Real Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged on February 10, 2026.

Matter of The Fred A. Rands & Meredith E. Rands Family Trust
26PR00614
Petition to Confirm Validity of Trust; Confirm Trustee; and Confirm Assets to Revocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: This Court’s order is conditioned on the beneficiaries of any probate estate of the settlors and the beneficiaries of the trust being the same. If that is not the case, counsel for petitioner is ordered to request to appear to so inform the Court.

The Petition, as amended by the supplement filed August 17, 2026, is APPROVED as stated below.

The assets at issue here are four IRA accounts (held with Fidelity, Capital Group, and All Spring) and one Fidelity General Investment Account. As for the Fidelity General Investment Account 8704, the petition is granted, as the trust, at section 1.03(a), contains a broad general assignment of assets to the trust that would encompass this account. See Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Fin., Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156, 163-164.

As for the IRA accounts, 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 as to the IRA accounts pursuant to Probate Code §850 could result in negative tax consequences based on the nature of the asset at issue.

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. The Court acknowledges that the supplement filed August 17, 2026 indicates the petitioner’s willingness to proceed in this way with respect to the IRA accounts. While no legal authority or legal argument is cited in support of this approach, the Court finds sufficient authority in its equitable power, particularly in the absence of any opposition after proper notice, or difference between heirs of the trust and heirs of a probate estate. The Court will sign the petitioner’s proposed order lodged August 17, 2026.

Matter of Charles Richard Kramlich
26PR00620
Petition for Order Determining Existence and Terms of Third Amendment of The Charles Richard Kramlich Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged on May 18, 2026.

Matter of John Gary Dunn Trust
26PR00629
Petition Confirming and Transferring Real Property to Trust; and
Temporary Restraining Order/Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Petition Confirming and Transferring Real Property to Trust is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged on May 19, 2026.

The temporary restraining order issued June 23, 2026 is dissolved. The Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction is discharged as moot in light of the ruling on the petition to transfer real property.

Matter of Rosati Family Revocable Trusted dated September 1, 1997
26PR00650
Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The matter is CONTINUED to December 18, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 for the reasons set forth below.

The 2020 Amendment to the Survivor’s Trust and Seventh Amendment to The Rosati Family Trust provides that after Lina M. Rosati fails to act as Trustee, then Jean McClune and Dana M. Conklin shall serve as Co-Trustees. (See Seventh Amendment to the Rosati Family Trust; Amendment to Survivor’s Trust, Section 8.1(a).) Even though Jean McClune and Dana M. Conklin have already served as Co-Trustees, they only resigned to allow Lina Rosati to serve as Trustee and withdraw her prior declination to serve. Thus, Lina Rosati was the last Trustee, and the Trust requires appointment of Jean McClune and Dana M. Conklin as Successor Co-Trustees. Neither was served with notice of this petition as required by Probate Code section 17203(a)(1). In the alternative, Petitioner also did not file declinations to serve as Successor Co-Trustees from Jean McClune and Dana M. Conklin.

The Petitioner claims that he is the successor in interest of Lina M. Rosati to the Rosati Family Revocable Trust because he is the acting Trustee and sole residuary beneficiary of the Lina M. Rosati Revocable Living Trust and he is the nominated executor of Lina M. Rosati’s Will. (Petition, ¶¶ 10, 13.) He claims this relation makes him eligible to be appointed as Successor Trustee of The Rosati Family Revocable Trust. However, the petition does not include a copy of the July 18, 2024, Declaration of Trust or Lina Rosati’s Will. Furthermore, the petition does not argue or provide evidence that the Survivor’s Trust and Exemption Trust were distributed to Lina during her lifetime. The Trust names contingent beneficiaries if Lina is not living at the time of distribution. Without clarification of distribution to Lina, the contingent beneficiaries would be entitled to notice pursuant to Probate Code section 17203(a)(2), which was not given. These contingent beneficiaries entitled to notice include: Emilio Chiuchiarelli, Ottavio D’Angelo, Duane P. Sartori, Alfred Mello, Humane Society of Sonoma County, Hospice of Petaluma, Petaluma Educational Foundation, Santa Rosa Junior College Foundation, and Petaluma Community Foundation.

Petitioner is also ordered to provide evidence of his relation to Mary Rosati. Mary’s daughter, Louise Purtill, and her issue are disinherited from the Trust and Mary’s Will, which weighs into the Court’s determination if Stephen Purtill Jr. is fit to be Successor Trustee of The Rosati Family Revocable Trust. The Court takes judicial notice on its own motion of the entire register of actions of a related Sonoma County Case, SPR092035, Matter of Mary Rosati Trust, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) to provide a fuller background for the instant action. It would appear, based on information in that case, that petitioner is the child of Louise and is specifically disinherited as a beneficiary of the trust to which he seeks appointment as trustee.

Petitioner is also ordered to address by verified supplement the fact that all attempted amendments after the death of the first settlor to die are ineffective to amend anything other than the survivor’s trust. The subsequent amendments do not appear to distinguish between the exemption or marital trust(s), which became irrevocable upon the death of the first settlor, and the survivor’s trust. While the provisions amended were generally in the survivor’s trust, this may still have the effect of requiring separate trustees for the subtrust(s), at a minimum. The petitioner must address the effect this has on the present request by distinguishing between the survivor's trust and other irrevocable trust(s) created upon the death of the first settlor. In addition, the petitioner should address the funding of the subtrusts and beneficiaries under the irrevocable subtrusts for the purpose of establishing to whom notice is required.

Finally, the Court observes that it appears the drafting attorney, Duane Sartori, is also a beneficiary under the testamentary document he drafted. Specifically, he is bequeathed the Rolex of the surviving settlor’s husband in the event that Lina predeceased her. (Trust, p. 80/86.) In the Amendment to the Survivor’s Trust, the surviving settlor bequeaths real property in Keaau, Hawaii, to Duane P. Sartori. (Trust, p. 75/86.) The 2020 Amendment and 2020 Will are the first instance where counsel Sartori becomes a contingent beneficiary. This raises concerns under Probate Code sections 6112 (interested witness) and 21380 (drafter-beneficiary) and rule 1.8.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (gifts from clients). Under the interested witness rule, there is a presumption that the witness (Sartori) procured the devise by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence and it would be Sartori’s burden to overcome this presumption. (Prob. Code § 6112(c)–(d).) Under Section 21380, there is a conclusive presumption of fraud or undue influence when a provision of an instrument makes a donative transfer to the person who drafted the instrument (Prob. Code §§ 21380(a)(1), (c); see also Butler v. LeBouef (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 198, 208.) In fact, this statute was created by the Legislature in response to this very practice by an attorney on an egregious scale. Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.8.3, would also result in a referral to the State Bar. The Court would also necessarily have to consider whether counsel should be disqualified in this matter. Petitioner’s counsel is directed to respond to the above concerns by sworn declaration. Should this petition be voluntarily dismissed without these concerns being addressed by counsel, the Court will simply make a referral to the State Bar for their further investigation. No referral is made at this time.

All supplemental information shall be filed no later than 20 days before the December 18th hearing.

Matter of The Frank R Prince IV Special Needs Trust
SPR82354
Ninth Account and Report of Trustees and Petition for Settlement of Account and Waiver of Trustees' Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged on May 20, 2026.

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.

Matter of The Marie Rose Prince Special Needs Trust
SPR82358
Ninth Account and Report of Trustees and Petition for Settlement of Account and Waiver of Trustees’ Fees

Tentative Ruling: The petition is APPROVED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged on May 20, 2026.

***End of Tentative Rulings***