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 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

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.

Tentative Rulings

June 26, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of The Patricia L. McCracken Family Trust
    26PR00273
    Petition for Order Confirming Trustee and Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 5, 2026.

 

  1. Matter of The 2020 Gilbert Velazquez Revocable Trust
    26PR00278
    Petition for Order Confirming Asset in Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 5, 2026.

The property is titled to the settlor’s 2014 trust. The 2014 trust was revoked by the settlor at the time the 2020 trust was executed. The property at issue is specifically listed in the schedule of trust assets for the 2020 trust. The petition is granted because a declaration by the settlor that he holds the property in trust for another, alone, is sufficient to render the property a trust asset.  Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.

The 2014 trust is not presented, so the Court cannot corroborate the revocability of that trust or the trust terms regarding disposition of the property on revocation. See California Probate Code §15410(a). However, the title of the 2014 trust indicates that it was revocable. Also, the verified and uncontested petition implies that the revocation was valid and the property reverted to the settlor at the time the 2014 trust was revoked, such that the settlor had the right in his individual capacity to transfer the property to the 2020 trust at the time of its creation. Therefore, the Court will proceed with granting the petition.

 

  1. Matter of Barbara Wellbeloved Trust
    26PR00296
    Petition for Order Determining Title to Financial Account

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 9, 2026.

 

  1. Matter of Virginia I. Knudsen Trust
    26PR00303
    Verified Petition to Invalidate Trust Amendment and Will; for Recovery of Trust Property; for Financial Elder Abuse; and for Disqualification of Abuser

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.  The Court is aware of the request for trial setting.  However, the Court is not inclined to set a matter for trial before the pleadings are settled.  An oral objection alone at the time of the hearing pursuant to Probate Code section 1043 would not suffice.  In light of the information in the statements of issues, and to conserve the resources of the parties, the Court instead orders that any objection must be filed and served no later than July 20, 2026, or shall be waived.  CRC Rule 7.801.  Matter is CONTINUED to a case management conference hearing on August 6, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Dept. 12 for trial setting.  The Court notes it has no availability in November or December of this year and encourages the parties to meet and confer about a trial date in 2027.

 

  1. Matter of Charles Joseph Messana Trust
    26PR00306
    Petition for Breach of Trust, for Surcharge, to Suspend and Remove Trustee, and Appoint a Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to October 16, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 for the reasons set forth below.

Charles Joseph Messana filed this petition on March 10, 2026. Russell C. Messana filed his response and objections on June 18, 2026. Deborah Wagner filed her response and objections on June 22, 2026. As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing, as requires by local rule 6.2.F.3.

A primary aspect of this case is the petitioner’s complaint that the trustee took a loan for $500,000.00, secured against trust real property, to fund litigation. The petitioner questions the need for the litigation, whether the litigation efforts will result in a benefit to the trust, and asserts the litigation has been for the trustee’s and her attorney’s personal gain. Without knowing the outcome of the pending appeal in the civil matter, and without attempting to decide the issues on appeal itself, the Court is not in a position to assess whether taking a $500,000.00 loan for funding litigation, or other actions related to the litigation, were breaches of a fiduciary duty. The outcome of the appeal will necessarily affect the Court’s analysis of these issues. Therefore, these issues are embraced in or affected by the pending appeal in the civil case and thus are automatically STAYED pending appeal. See CCP § 916(a).

The Court questions whether the other issues raised in the petition (i.e. other factual bases for breach of trust and removal) that may not be directly embraced in or affected by the appeal are so inextricably intertwined with the facts of the case that are on appeal that they may be also subject to stay. If not, the Court does have jurisdiction to proceed on those issues. CCP §§ 916(a)&(b). Also see Hollaway v. Scripps Memorial Hospital (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 719, 723. Whether the petitioner would have the Court sever the stayed issues and proceed on other issues pending appeal, and what those issues are, whether judicial economy is served thereby, or whether the entire action is stayed, should be addressed in the parties’ statements of issues filed in advance of the continued hearing pursuant to local rule 6.2.F.3, and should be discussed during the meet and confer efforts made pursuant to local rule 6.2.F.2.

To the extent any party asserts that certain issues in this case can be decided as a matter of law if not stayed, or after a stay is lifted, the Court would require a mechanism to address them that gives all parties an opportunity to file briefs and be heard, such as a noticed motion. The parties should discuss the most economical way to address any such issues as part of their meet and confer efforts.

The allegations of wrongdoing by the trustee are not sufficient to show that immediate suspension is necessary to prevent loss or injury to the interests of a beneficiary pending a decision on removal and any appellate review, so the request to suspend the trustee is DENIED. Prob C §15642(e).

 

  1. Matter of Michael Weissgerber Trust
    26PR00308
    Petition for Court Order Authorizing Transfer of Settlor’s Property to Trust

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

As for the condominium at 810 Seventh Street #13, Santa Rosa, CA, the petition is DENIED.  The Petitioner makes a well-supported and persuasive argument, both legally and equitably, for the relief sought.  The obstacle to granting the request is the case of Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 743, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 23, 2019).  That case holds that where a pour-over will gives property to a trust, and the property is not otherwise made part of the trust res, the property cannot be simply transferred to the trust without probate administration.  Where this Court has relied on a pour over will to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement for a transfer to a trust of real property, there has been other evidence of the settlor’s intent to hold the property in trust, such that it is otherwise made part of the trust res.  Here the pour over will is offered to serve both purposes and falls squarely within the rule stated in Placencia that governs this Court.  Whether a legislative fix to this very common problem can be sought or obtained is beyond the purview of this trial court, except to encourage such as in support of equity and the efficient distribution of decedent’s estates.

As for the membership interest in the Odd Fellows Recreation Club, the petition, at paragraph 7, states that there is a schedule of trust assets that includes this membership interest. However, the schedule of trust assets is not presented. Therefore, this issue is CONTINUED to October 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to file and serve, at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing, a verified supplement that includes the missing schedule of trust assets. The petitioner must also cure the following notice defects:

  • Use of the DE-115 notice of hearing form is mandatory in the context of California Probate Code (“Prob C”) §850 petitions. The petitioner has used the incorrect notice of hearing form here, the DE-120 form.
  • The notice of hearing does not include a description of the subject property, as required by Prob C §851(c)(1).
  • The Odd Fellows Recreation Club is entitled to notice pursuant to Prob C §851(a)(2). The petitioner should note that Prob C §851(a) requires service of the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition in the manner provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §413.10 et seq. (i.e. in the manner of a summons.)

     

  1. Matter of Louis B. Seaman Trust
    26PR00367
    Petition for Instruction, Determination of Liability, and Equitable Relief

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to October 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12.  As this is now a contested matter, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.2 and file statements of issues at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing, in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3.

The Court notes the verification of the petition required by California Probate Code §1021 has now been filed.

 

  1. Matter of Brendan Molavi Trust
    SPR096925
    Second Account and Report of The Trustees of The Brenden Molavi Special Needs Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged March 13, 2026.

The required amount of bond is increased to $80,000.00 pursuant to California Probate Code §2320(c).

A hearing is SET on the case management conference calendar for February 24, 2028 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 63 for status of the third account. If the petition for approval of the third account is filed prior to this date, the case management conference hearing will be dropped from calendar.

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.

 

***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?