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

• 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 Amos Arbel Revocable Trust
   25PR00877
   Petition for Removal of Ayelet Arbel as Trustee, Appointment of an Independent Fiduciary, and for Instructions

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The Court intends to set this matter for trial.  Per the only statement of issues, filed by respondent on May 28, 2026, more time is needed to complete the accounting, and a review of the accounting is needed before the case can progress. The respondent suggests this hearing be continued.  This matter has been continued twice before.  The wait for a hearing on the trust calendar is currently near four months.  The repeated continuances of trust cases for status is contributing to the wait.  This case has been pending almost a year.  The Court instead finds it appropriate to set a trial date, however, that date can be well in the future to allow the parties sufficient time to exchange information, conduct discovery and engage in settlement discussions prior to the date set.

 

2. Matter of Jennifer L. Platt Trust
   25PR01092
   Petition for Instructions for the Jennier L. Platt Trust, Dated November 20, 2024

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

        I.  There is no adequate proof of service of the objection filed May 28, 2026.

The objection is accompanied by proof(s) of service showing service of the objecting papers to counsel for the petitioner by email, however, no date of service is indicated in either of the two proofs of service of the opposition and supporting declarations. On May 1, 2026, the Court ordered that any objection must be served by May 29, 2026 or the objection would be deemed waived per California Rule of Court, Rule 7.801. Also, the proof of service is signed by the objector which renders it invalid.  As there is presently no valid proof of service of the objection, the Court considers the matters raised therein waived and proceeds to rule on the petition as uncontested as stated below.

        II.  In reference to the proposed order lodged October 1, 2025

Proposed order number 1 is DENIED. Per Trust section 3.01(b), the trustee shall make direct payments to vendors for services utilized by Jennifer L. Platt upon submission statements or invoices from such vendors. The trustee suggests this method of distribution is inefficient and causes unneeded delay and cost. The trustee suggests that these distributions be handled via a TrueLink Cash Card. The cash card is already provided to the beneficiary pursuant to Trust 3.01(a) with an allowance of up to $1,300.00 per month.

The trustee cites California Probate Code §15409 in support of this request, but does not show that there are changed circumstances justifying modification. The proposed plan is contrary to the intent of the settlor as stated in the trust, and the Court finds no adequate basis for modifying or reforming the trust in the way suggested by the trustee.

Proposed order number 2 is DENIED. The petitioner asks the Court to include new terms in the trust that would impose new standards for distribution to the beneficiary. The trustee cites California Probate Code §15409 in support of this request, but does not show that there are changed circumstances justifying modification. The proposed plan is contrary to the intent of the settlor as stated in the trust, and the Court finds no adequate basis for modifying or reforming the trust in the way suggested by the trustee.

As for the request to instruct the trustee that the examples enumerated in Trust section 3.01(b) are illustrative and not exhaustive, this aspect of the petition is GRANTED, as this is a correct interpretation of the language “include, but are not limited to,” in Trust section 3.01(b).

Proposed order number 3, which reflects a modification of the trust so that home maintenance and repairs are only mandatory expenses as outlined in Trust Section 3.01(b), is GRANTED.

Proposed order number 4 is GRANTED. The language of the trust is not ambiguous. It directs the trustee not to pay for storage expenses on behalf of Jennifer L. Platt. Restricting the trustee from helping the beneficiary with the purchase/installation of a shed would be too broad an interpretation of this language. But preventing payment to commercial storage facilities is in line with the plain meaning of the trust. In passing on a request for instructions respecting the administration of an active trust, the extent and nature of the powers afforded a trustee depend primarily upon the intention of the settlor, which is to be gathered from the trust instrument as a whole. Estate of Nicholas (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1083; Estate of Ferrall (1953) 41 Cal.2d 166, 176. The interpretation of a trust instrument, like any written document, is a question of law. Estate of Cairns (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 937, 944. Here, the Court finds that it can determine as a matter of law that proposed order number 4 should be granted, with the following modification: “Constrains “storage expenses” to a meaning of recurring commercial storage facility fees and authorizing Trustee payment for a storage shed or similar on-property improvement when reasonable.”

As for proposed orders number 5, 6 and 7, the requests are GRANTED and the accounting APPROVED.

         III.  In reference to the proposed order lodged March 30, 2026

As for the application of the trust’s no-contest clause, the Court does not find that the trust’s no-contest clause applies to Jennier L. Platt at this time. To the extent the petition asks the Court to apply the no-contest clause to Jennifer L. Platt, that request is DENIED. A no contest clause is enforceable against a direct contest that is brought without probable cause. Dae v. Traver (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 456. The petitioner has the burden to show that the petition lacked probable cause. Key v. Tyler (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 531, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 7, 2019). The petitioner has not carried their burden here, because they do not show that the contest was brought without probable cause. The Court also is in no position to determine whether the petition was supported by probable cause. The petition contesting the trust was dismissed, and the issues raised by said petition will not be decided in this County because it is an inconvenient forum and, with respect to certain claims in the petition, the Court found it lacked personal jurisdiction.

As for the requests related to appointment of an interim or successor professional fiduciary, the request is DENIED without prejudice. No successor is nominated, and the Court does not maintain a list of approved professional fiduciaries, nor does the Court generally appoint successor or interim trustees without a nomination and an indication that the proposed trustee accepts the trust.

As for proposed orders number 3 and 4 they are GRANTED and the supplemental accounting is APPROVED.

Counsel for the petitioner is directed to lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.
 

3. Matter of Penelope Day Klavinger Trust
   25PR01245
   Verified Petition for Breach of Trust and Fiduciary Duty; Compelling Distribution; and for Reimbursement of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED for setting of an evidentiary hearing.  Based on the statements of issues filed, the Court intends to set a trial date in mid-September for a 1 to 3 day hearing.  The Court requests that the parties be prepared to specify the matters encompassed within the pleadings that will be tried.

 

4. Matter of William Williamson Smith and Arline Hotle Smith Revocable Trust
   25PR01354
   First Report and Account of Trustee and Petition for its Settlement

Tentative Ruling: This matter has been CONTINUED to September 4, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 by stipulation of the parties. The matter is DROPPED from calendar.

 

5. Matter of Thomas P. Kelly, Jr Trust
   26PR00216        
   Petitioner for an Order to Confirm Assets to Revocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons set forth below.

As for the securities held by Computershare, there is insufficient evidence to support the petition. California Evidence Code §662 codifies the form of title presumption, i.e. that the owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548, 556. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof. Id.  The statement in the declaration of trustee that “Based on my knowledge of my brother and the Trust documents, I believe my brother intended for all of his assets, including the securities … to be held in the Trust …” is insufficient evidence to carry this burden.  The Court notes the securities are not expressly addressed by the trust, unlike the mineral rights addressed below.  The petitioner thus fails to present clear and convincing proof that the subject asset was transferred to the trust or is held in the trust. While the allegations of this uncontested and verified petition and the supporting declarations are evidence per California Probate Code §1022, the allegations are not sufficient to support a finding that the settlor manifested an intention, orally or in writing, to hold the subject assets in trust. See California Probate Code §15201.

As for the New Mexico mineral interests, the courts of one state cannot make a decree which will operate to change or directly affect the title to real property beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Taylor v. Taylor (1923) 192 Cal. 71, 76. The doctrine that a court, not having jurisdiction of the res, cannot affect it by its decree is firmly established. Id. Here, the petitioner initially asks the Court to issue an order that will change or directly affect the ownership interests in real property located in New Mexico i.e. by confirming the mineral interests as a trust asset. This, the Court cannot do.

In a supplement filed May 22, 2026, the petitioner clarifies the relief requested stating:

“The Petition asks this Court to confirm, based on the Settlor's written intent, that the mineral interests are Trust assets so that the successor trustee can present the order to Hilcorp [a Texas company] and obtain recognition of the Trust's right to receive the royalties from those interests. (Petition, para. 9, Prayer, para. 3.) The deed by which the Settlor acquired the mineral interests (Document No. 2013144553, Official Records of San Juan County) will remain as recorded. The Petition does not ask this Court to alter any instrument recorded in New Mexico.”

A court of equity may in proper cases compel parties to a case to act in relation to property not within the jurisdiction of the court, but its decrees do not operate directly upon the property nor affect the title.  Taylor v. Taylor (1923) 192 Cal. 71, 76. Based on the supplemental filing of May 22, 2026, and the absence of any objection by Hilcorp, the Court grants the petition to the extent the Court orders that the trustee is entitled to the royalty proceeds of the mineral interests administered by HilCorp Energy Company.  However, the Court expressly does not order any change to the title of the real property interest or the deed recorded in New Mexico.

Petitioner is directed to submit a revised order after hearing consistent with this ruling.

 

6. Matter of Hagstrom Irrevocable Trust
   26PR00219
   Petition for Orders to (1) Order Reviewing and Settling Trustee’s Account and Acts; (2) Objections to Accounting; (3) Removal of Trustee; (4) Surcharge and Restitution; (5) Compelling Sale of Trust Real Property; (6) Appointment of Successor Trustee; (7) Instructions and Further Relief

Tentative Ruling: On June 2, 2026, a response and objection was filed by respondent.  As this is now a contested matter, the hearing is CONTINUED to September 18, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12, and 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.

A trustee may be suspended when it appears to the Court that trust property or the interests of a beneficiary may suffer loss or injury pending a decision on a petition for removal of the trustee.  Probate Code § 15642(e).  Here, the settlor died 20 months ago in October 2024 and, while the trust is a distributive trust, there has been no distribution of the main asset of the trust, the real property.  Instead, trustee has continued sole occupation of the property.  There is no reasonable basis presented for the delay in distribution and the interests of the other beneficiaries are impaired in that they are completely deprived of their share of the trust.  There is no basis on which to conclude the status quo will change prior to conclusion of this litigation.  The request to suspend trustee Steven Hagstrom immediately is GRANTED, effective the date of this hearing.  Jeffery Hagstrom is appointed as interim sole successor trustee, to serve without bond. Steven Hagstrom is ordered to immediately relinquish all information, documents, or other things necessary to facilitate the orderly transfer of the office of the trustee to Jeffery Hagstrom. The interim trustee is authorized to proceed with distribution of the trust res as he sees appropriate in his discretion as interim successor trustee, whether that is a purchase by Steven Hagstrom, or a sale of the trust residence through an independent broker on the open market.   

 All other requests are continued to the future hearing date.  Petitioners are directed to submit a revised proposed order after hearing that conforms to this ruling.

 

7. Matter of Melida Peewee Rucker Trust
   26PR00234
   Petition to Transfer Asset Held in Decedent’s Name to Decedent’s Trust

Tentative Ruling: The asset at issue in this Heggstad petition is real property. Exhibit G to the petition lists Cenlar Mortgage as being entitled to notice of the petition, but there is no proof of service to Cenlar Mortgage. If the real estate at issue in this petition is encumbered or co-owned, normally the interest holder is entitled to notice as provided by California Probate Code (Prob C) §851(a)(2). However, counsel for petitioner filed supplemental papers on June 1, 2026 indicating Cenlar has not been an active corporate with a registered California agent for service of process since 2019.  Counsel also indicates that despite, this actual notice was provided to Cenlar, though less than 30 days prior to this hearing.  A proof of service is yet to be filed. 

The need for this petition stems only as a result of the failure of a title company to accept this Court’s prior order that the deed that transferred the real property out of the trust was invalid.  However, in light of that valid court order, the Court finds that the present petition does not function as a standard Probate Code section 850 petition, in that the trust was actually never lawfully deprived of its ownership of the real property.  Instead this petition seeks an order to confirm that fact in a form that is acceptable to the title company.  Given these unique facts, the Court finds notice to the mortgage holder is not required, and that there is no possibility that its interest in the property is impaired or otherwise effected.

The petition is APPROVED. 

 

8. Matter of Bypass Trust Created under the Sande Family Trust
   26PR00262
   Petition to Terminate Trust Under Probate Code Sections 15403 and 15409

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 2, 2026.

 

9. Matter of David Dethman, Jr Special Needs Trust
   SPR094173
   Fourth Account and Report of Trustees, Petition to Settle Account, to Decrease Bond, and to Fix and Allow Trustee’s Fees and Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 2, 2026.

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 requirements have been met.

***End of Tentative Rulings***