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

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

Honorable Rene A. Chouteau
October 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Elmer Leroy Martinelli Trust
    24PR00433
    Approval of Settlement Agreement

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to January 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 pursuant to the parties’ stipulated continuance filed on September 22, 2026.

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.

 

  1. &  3.  Matter of Richard B. Iverson and Barbara A. Iverson Family Trust
                26PR00045
                Competing Petitions for Instructions and Reformation

Tentative Ruling: APPERANCES REQUIRED for setting an evidentiary hearing. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the hearing for estimates of the hearing length and proposed dates for hearing.

Thomas objects to Trustee’s non pro-rata distributions and arguing that the respective assets distributed to the beneficiaries do not have equivalent or proportionate fair market value. Thomas argues that Wendy should pay fair market value rent for her tenancy of the Orchard Street Property from November 4, 2023 to April 1, 2026 and that the amount distributed to the other beneficiaries does not compensate them for the amount in rent Wendy owes to the Trust. There is not sufficient evidence before the Court to determine whether Wendy should be required to pay rent to effectuate a pro-rata distribution of the Trust assets amongst the beneficiaries.

The parties are ordered to continue to meet and confer to attempt to resolve any issues they can prior to the evidentiary hearing. If parties agree to settlement conference panel, the Court will order a settlement conference and the parties shall contact the judicial assistant as to the date and time of the conference.

 

  1. Matter of Panfiglio Family Trust
    26PR00388
    Petition to Remove Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to Friday, January 29 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63. Petitioner has failed to file a proof of service.

 If petitioner files a proof service showing service of the petition at least 30 days before the October 2nd hearing on all necessary parties, he may file it in advance of the hearing and request to appear at the hearing (in accordance with applicable local rules) to present the proof of service to the Court, potentially avoiding the continuance.

 

  1. Matter of the Mark J. Burris Trust
    26PR00462
    Petition for: (1) Removal of Successor Trustee; (2) Accounting; (3) Breach of Trust; (4) Invalidation of Transfer-on-Death Beneficiary Designation; (5) Imposition of Constructive Trust; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (7) Disinheritance for Abuse of Dependent Adult; and (8) Declaratory Relief

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to Friday, February 5, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 as explained below.

Petitioner has not corrected the notice defects as noted by the examiner notes posted on August 18, 2026. There is no proof of service for Edward Jones, who is entitled to service in the manner of a summons pursuant to Probate Code section 851(a)(2) and Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq. Furthermore, all beneficiaries named in the Trust have not been served as required by Probate Code section 851.

Respondents Michael and Sharon Burris now object to the petition. As this is 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 in compliance with local rule 6.2.F.3 at least seven (7) court days in advance of the continued hearing.

Regarding the requests for surcharge/damages, evidence will need to be presented before a decision can be rendered. In due course, the Court will require the petitioner to serve and file a summary of damages. The Court will then determine whether an evidentiary hearing is needed or merely a prove-up hearing held.

Regarding the request for costs of suit associated with the petition and any prove-up hearing, they may be claimed pursuant to a memorandum of costs filed with the court and subject to a motion to tax at the conclusion of the matter.  Any request for attorney’s fees must be by noticed motion and include the authority for an award, as well as support for the amount requested.

 

  1. Matter of The Exemption Trust Under The Marquis Family Trust
    26PR00708
    Petition for Termination of Exemption Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to Friday, January 29 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63. Petitioner has failed to file a proof of service.

 If petitioner files a proof service showing service of the petition at least 30 days before the October 2nd hearing on all necessary parties, she may file it in advance of the hearing and request to appear at the hearing (in accordance with applicable local rules) to present the proof of service to the Court, potentially avoiding the continuance.

 

  1. Matter of William S. Robertson and Phyllis W. Robertson Trust
    26PR00736
    Petition to Remove Successor Trustee, Appoint Successor Trustee, and Accounting

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to Friday, December 11, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 pursuant to the parties’ joint notice of conditional settlement and request for continuance. The parties shall submit their requisite filings requesting settlement approval no later than seven (7) court days before the December 11th hearing. 

 

  1. Matter of Susan L. Varga Trust
    26PR00737
    Petition for Determination of Property and Damages

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINED to Friday, February 5, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 for the reasons explained below.

Sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the Trust instrument incorporate by reference a separate schedule of property and other “attached Schedules”. However, the petition does not include any Schedules, including a Schedule of Trust Property. The petitioner shall file any Trust Schedules no later than 10 days before the continued hearing.

Petitioner seeks to confirm monies in various accounts as belonging to the Trust under Probate Code section 850 to support a finding of wrongful taking of Trust assets by respondent Catherine Laidlaw. Petitioner must first establish that the accounts at issue are assets of the Trust before seeking a determination that the monies contained in these accounts rightfully belong to the Trust. Petitioner is ORDERED to meet and confer with Trustee and through Trustee obtain statements from these accounts to support the petition.

The 2021 letter from Valerie Pistole confirms that the US Bank and Exchange Bank accounts were trust accounts as of April 15, 2021, but that the remaining accounts with SF Credit Union, Wells Fargo, and Redwood Credit Union were not in the Trust. There is no proof of service for any of the financial entities: US Bank, Exchange Bank, SF Credit Union, Wells Fargo, or Redwood Credit Union. These financial entities are entitled to service in the manner of a summons pursuant to Probate Code section 851(a)(2) and Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq. Accordingly, the notice of hearing is insufficient and does not include a description of the subject property sufficient to provide adequate notice to any party who may have an interest in the property as required by Probate Code section 851(c)(1), i.e. listing the entities in possession of the bank accounts with the corresponding account numbers. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.201(a)(2) [requiring financial account numbers to contain only the last four digits for protection of privacy].) Currently, the three SF Credit Union accounts and the Redwood Credit Union account are not identified by any account number and thus are not sufficiently described to provide adequate notice.

The Court requires the separate Schedules referenced by the Trust and notice to the financial entities before it will determine whether it can confirm the accounts at issue, and the monies contained therein, as assets of the Trust on the papers alone to support a finding of wrongful taking of Trust assets by respondent.

As to the damages requested in the petition, evidence will need to be presented to this Court before a decision can be rendered. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to Friday, February 5, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63. The dual purpose of the continuance is to allow the petitioner time to prepare to present written evidence to the Court and respondent regarding the amount of any damages claimed. Unless the petitioner needs and requests more time, the petitioner shall file and serve written evidence supporting the damages sought at least 10 days before the hearing. In the absence of any objection, the Court may decide the question based solely on the written evidence submitted. However, if there is an objection, or if the Court determines it requires live testimony, it may set an evidentiary hearing.

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), the Court takes judicial notice of the related case, Matter of Susan L. Varga Trust, Case No. 24PR00478, on its own motion subject to the following limitation. The Court does not take notice of the truth of hearsay statements in this case and documents contained therein. (Evid. Code §§ 452(d), 453; People v. Harbolt (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 123, 126–127 [citations omitted] [courts may “take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments—but cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.”].) 

 

  1. Matter of the Joseph Pee Revocable Living Trust
    26PR00743
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged on June 16, 2026.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***