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

May 15, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of The Rural Adventure Private Trust Dated October 30, 2020 Trust
    24PR00887
    Amended Petition for Instructions Determining Construction of Trust, Validity of Trust Provisions, Approving Modification, Ascertaining Beneficiaries, and Confirming Trustee and Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Court notes a substitution of attorney was filed May 11, 2026 on behalf of petitioner.  This matter is CONTINUED to July 24, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow new counsel an opportunity to become oriented to the case prior to any trial setting and for renewed meet and confer efforts.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer and to file statements of issues prior to the next hearing in accordance with the local rules.  The statements of issues should address which issue should be set for trial, who, if anyone, is the present trustee of the trust, or the petition, if the matter has not resolved.  Presently, despite the Court’s February 3, 2026 order requiring the parties to file statements of issues, neither has. Instead, on May 4, 2026, Jane Doe filed a supplemental brief, which essentially asserts that the petition is without merit as a matter of law and asks the Court to summarily adjudicate the petition. The document filed in this manner does not bring the issue before the Court, is not a recognized pleading and is not a procedurally appropriate mechanism for requesting a summary adjudication of the petition or to show that the petition fails as a matter of law. The Court STRIKES the May 4, 2026 supplemental brief of Jane Doe and all of the declarations and other documents associated therewith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).

 

  1. Matter of The Urban Orchards Private Trust Dated October 30, 2020 Trust
    24PR00888
    Amended Petition for Instructions Determining Construction of Trust, Validity of Trust Provisions, Approving Modification, Ascertaining Beneficiaries, and Confirming Trustee and Trust Property

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The Court notes a substitution of attorney was filed May 11, 2026 on behalf of petitioner.  This matter is CONTINUED to July 24, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 12 to allow new counsel an opportunity to become oriented to the case prior to any trial setting and for renewed meet and confer efforts.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer and to file statements of issues prior to the next hearing in accordance with the local rules.  The statements of issues should address which issue should be set for trial, who, if anyone, is the present trustee of the trust, or the petition, if the matter has not resolved.  Presently, despite the Court’s February 3, 2026 order requiring the parties to file statements of issues, neither has. Instead, on May 4, 2026, Jane Doe filed a supplemental brief, which essentially asserts that the petition is without merit as a matter of law and asks the Court to summarily adjudicate the petition. The document filed in this manner does not bring the issue before the Court, is not a recognized pleading and is not a procedurally appropriate mechanism for requesting a summary adjudication of the petition or to show that the petition fails as a matter of law. The Court STRIKES the May 4, 2026 supplemental brief of Jane Doe and all of the declarations and other documents associated therewith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).

 

  1. Matter of The 2017 Reinstated in Full Passwaters 1972 Trust
    25PR00780
    Amended Petition for Order Determining Trust's Title to Personal Property

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED. 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 petitioner 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 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.

There is no written evidence presented showing the subject account was transferred to the trust. The Court considered whether there is sufficient evidence to show an oral transfer of the subject account to the trust. As this is personal property, no written evidence of the creation of the trust is required. The existence and terms of an oral trust of personal property may be established only by clear and convincing evidence; The oral declaration of the settlor, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence of the creation of a trust of personal property. Prob C §§15207(a)&(b). Here, despite Michele Steward’s declaration in support, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the settlor made an oral declaration that he intended the account to be held in trust or that the property was otherwise transferred to the trust. At paragraph 8 of the declaration, the petitioner states that she knows the settlor wanted to transfer the Discover Bank account to the trust based on “his expressed intentions prior to his death,” but this vague allegation is not sufficient to carry the petition.

The Court also notes that the petition, at paragraph 10, refers to an Exhibit D, which would show that the settlors owned the subject account, but no Exhibit D is attached to the petition.

 

  1. Matter of The Alice D. Giorgetti Trust
    25PR01164
    Verified Petition for: (1) Settlement of First and Final Account Current of Trustee of The Alice D. Giorgetti Trust; (2) Approval of Distribution; (3) Approval of Compensation; and (4) Approval of Funds to be Held in Reserve

Tentative Ruling: Per the petitioner’s May 7, 2026 statements of issues, the parties have reached a resolution and plan to file a stipulation and order prior to the May 15, 2026 hearing. This matter is CONTINUED to August 13, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 (Case Management Conference Calendar) for status of settlement. The continued hearing will be vacated if the matter is fully resolved prior to that date.

 

  1. Matter of Sechrist Family Trust
    25PR01188
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Property and to Terminate Subtrusts

Tentative Ruling: Per the Notice of Stipulated Continuance filed May 8, 2026, this matter has been CONTINUED to August 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12. Normally no more than three continuances will be allowed before the matter is dismissed without prejudice. Sonoma County Local Rule 6.2.C.2.c.

 

  1. Matter of The Caitlen Sissa Trust
    26PR00086
    Petition to Modify Irrevocable Trust

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 22, 2026.

 

  1. Matter of Gina Di Leonardo Paisley Trust
    25PR01202
    Petition to Confirm Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED, except proposed order 2(a)(iv) is DENIED. This proposed order asks the Court to confirm as a trust asset “Any other account later identified which is held in Decedent’s individual name without a beneficiary designation or without a payable-on-death designation.” This request is too vague and broadly applicable and there is no sufficient notice that any such property is at issue in this petition.

The Court will sign the proposed order lodged October 22, 2025, but will strike proposed order 2(a)(iv).

 

  1. Matter of The Molyneaux Family Trust
    26PR00093
    Petition for Instructions and Modification of Trust Instrument

DISCLOSURE: The Court discloses that its former courtroom clerk, Avery Roux, left her employment with the court in May 2025 and became employed by the firm of Spaulding McCullough & Tansil as a law clerk.  While the Court makes this disclosure, it finds no basis on which to recuse.  If any party wishes to be heard, or to request more information on the disclosure, they should request to appear for that purpose.

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 23, 2026.

 

  1. Matter of The Douglas W. Hauser & Jacqueline L. Hauser Revocable Trust
    26PR00118
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED except proposed order number 2 is DENIED. Proposed order number two asks the Court to determine that the settlor validly exercised her power of appointment under the trust. This request is not reflected in the pleading title or in the notice of hearing, so the issue is not properly before the Court. See California Rules of Court Rules 7.50 and 7.102. Furthermore, there is no indication in the petition that this request is necessary for the protection of interests. See California Probate Code §17202.

The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 29, 2026 but will strike proposed order number 2.

 

  1. Matter of The Sally R. Grimshaw Trust
    26PR00120
    Petition for Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED but bond in the amount of $2,000,000.00 is required. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 29, 2026 and will include the bond requirement in the order.

 

**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?