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

October 23, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.  

  1. Matter of Dennis John Parish Living Trust Dated 2/13/2008
    24PR00754
    Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee and Waive Bond

Tentative Ruling: The petition is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

There is no proof of service of the notice of hearing to the beneficiaries and trustee. California Probate Code [Prob C] §17203(a).

Also, the Court would not allow the petitioner to bring this petition on behalf of the minor grandchildren beneficiaries because the petitioner has a conflict of interest as a possible intestate heir of the res of the grandchildren’s trusts. See Prob C §§6401(c)(2)(B) & 15804(b)(1); Trust section 4.5(iii). Upon proper application, the Court would appoint a neutral third party as Guardian Ad Litem for the grandchildren pursuant to Prob C §1003(a), as reflected in the Court’s July 10, 2026 Order Denying the Ex Parte Application for Guardian Ad Litem.  No such application has been made.

Finally, the petition would be denied on the merits. Thomas R. Passalacqua, Esq. is the named successor trustee. Trust, 4.5 (iv). Thomas R. Passalacqua, Esq., in his capacity as trustee with authority to appoint a successor, appointed Derek John Parrish to serve as sole trustee of the grandchildren’s trusts. The trust does not require co-trustees, and there is no trustee vacancy to be filled. The trust does not give Derek John Parrish, the presently serving trustee, any authority to appoint a co-trustee or otherwise alter the office of the trustee.

To the extent this petition could be construed as an attempt to enforce the agreement entered into between the parties in Family Court, the trustee had no authority to enter into any such agreement under the trust terms, so the petitioner is not the rightful successor co-trustee by way of that agreement. Trustees are bound by the terms of the trust and possess only that authority conferred upon them by the trust. Crocker-Citizens National Bank v. Younger (1971) 4 Cal.3d 202, 211. The petition states no valid basis for granting the requested relief in this forum.

The Court notes that the petitioner’s statement of issues filed October 14, 2026 does not have the effect of amending the petition and the attachments thereto are not properly before the Court.

 

  1. Matter of The Duane I Delong Trust
    25PR01440
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged December 11, 2025.

 

  1. Matter of The Willy & Grete Norup Trust
    26PR00335
    Petition to Invalidate Fifth Amendment to Amendment to and Restatement of Willy and Grete Norup Trust

Tentative Ruling: The preambles to the fourth and fifth amendments state that Trust section 3.1 reserves in the surviving settlor the right of amendment, but this is incorrect with respect to the disclaimer trust. Trust section 3.2 states the disclaimer trust becomes irrevocable at the death of the first settlor to die. This shows the settlors’ joint intent not to allow the surviving settlor to amend the default remainder provisions under Trust section 6.3 unilaterally. The surviving settlor failed to amend the power of appointment trust or appoint the trust res, which he had full authority to do, but instead attempted to change section 6.3, an irrevocable portion of the trust. The petition can be resolved as a matter of law because the fourth and fifth amendments are invalid to the extent they attempt to amend the irrevocable provisions of the disclaimer trust. Therefore, in light of the provisions of Trust section 3.6, as amended by the second amendment, and in the absence of any dispute as to Willy Norup’s authority to execute the third amendment as attorney-in-fact for Grete Norup, the dispositive provisions of the Third Amendment to Amendment to and Restatement of Willy and Grete Norup Trust, dated January 31, 2018, control. Hannah Dova and Rachel Wells are each entitled to ten (10) percent of the remainder, and Ulla Milbrath and Kim Norup are each entitled to forty (40) percent of the remainder.

The Court considered whether to interpret the fourth and fifth amendments as amendments to the remainder disposition of the power of appointment trust res, despite the fact that the amended provision is organized within the disclaimer trust provisions. The Court considered whether it should find that the surviving settlor was, by amending section 6.3, essentially amending the ultimate disposition of the res of the power of appointment trust, which he had full authority to do. In assessing the decedent's intent, the court should consider all evidence in an effort to avoid artificial results contrary to the decedent's actual intent. Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 740–741, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 23, 2019). The modern trend favors the decedent's intent over formalities. Id. The Court has not taken this approach because it would be contrary to the express trust terms and thus would be contrary to the intent of settlor Grete Norup to allow an amendment to the irrevocable default remainder provisions under section 6.3. It is the duty of the court to determine the intent of the settlor or maker of a trust and, when determined, to give such intent effect.  Estate of Parrette (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 157, 161. The intent is to be gathered from the expressions in the trust agreement. Id.

As for the successor trustee, the fifth amendment’s successor trustee provision is valid to the extent it applies to the power of appointment trust, but as Exchange Bank has refused to serve, the amendment has no effect. The Court addresses the issue of who will serve as trustee in its ruling on the Petition for Appointment of Successor Trustee filed by Kim Norup on March 17, 2026.

The petition to challenge the fifth amendment based on undue influence, etc., is DROPPED as moot in light of the fact the amendment challenged is invalid as a matter of law as to the changes to the section 6.3 provisions.  Petitioner is directed to request to appear if she wants to pursue her undue influence/lack of capacity claims as to the remainder of the amendment, otherwise the balance of the petition is likewise DROPPED as moot.

Any request for attorney’s fees or costs of suit must be by noticed motion and include the authority for an award, as well as support for the amount requested.

Counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit a revised proposed order after hearing that conforms to this ruling.  The Court will issue a written order.

 

  1. Matter of The Willy & Grete Norup Trust
    26PR00335
    Petition for Appointment of Successor Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The Reply filed by Kim Norup on September 3, 2026 is not a recognized type of pleading. California Probate Code §1000(a) [Except to the extent the probate code provides applicable rules, the rules of practice applicable to civil actions apply to, and constitute the rules of practice in, these proceedings.] The Court STRIKES the September 3, 2026 Reply pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §436(b).

The petition is DENIED. With respect to the disclaimer trust, the petitioner is the rightful trustee of the disclaimer trust per the plain terms of Trust section 7.1. The Court acknowledges that, per the August 17, 2026 supplement, the disclaimer trust was never funded, so the rightful trustee of the disclaimer trust is a moot issue. With respect to the power of appointment trust, as Exchange Bank has declined to serve, there is a vacancy in the office of trustee. Pursuant to California Probate Code §15660(d), the Court is given discretion in appointing a trustee. In light of the present litigation the Court finds it would not be prudent to appoint Kim Norup, an interested beneficiary and party to this litigation, to serve as trustee. Further, the settlor’s most recent expression of intent indicates his preference to have a neutral third-party professional serve as trustee of the power of appointment trust. Also, the Court finds the trust res, which exceeds $650,000.00, is sufficiently large to accommodate the employment of a professional trustee. Therefore, the Court will appoint a professional trustee to serve as successor trustee of the power of appointment trust.

As no nomination and acceptance is presented, the Court will appoint a trustee by the following procedure: the parties may stipulate to a particular professional trustee pursuant to California Probate Code §15660(c) and submit the stipulation by drop-off ex parte application to the Court for approval. If the parties cannot agree, the parties shall file their nominations by drop-off ex parte application on or before November 9, 2026. The stipulation or application should include an indication that the professional trustee accepts the trust, and a proposed order appointing the successor trustee should be submitted concurrently. Bond in the amount of $665,300.00 is required.

Any request for attorney’s fees or costs of suit must be by noticed motion and include the authority for an award, as well as support for the amount requested.

Counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit a revised proposed order after hearing that conforms to this ruling.  The Court will issue a written order.

 

  1. Matter of the Matos Family Trust
    26PR00337
    Petition to Determine Invalidity of Purported Trust Amendment; for Imposition of Constructive Trust; Damages for Elder Abuse

Tentative Ruling: APPEARANCES REQUIRED for trial setting. Counsel for the parties should be prepared to discuss trial availability and estimates for length of trial.

As for the objector’s request to apply the no contest clause to the petitioner, this affirmative claim for relief is not properly raised in a responsive pleading. See California Probate Code §1000(a) and California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(c). Absent an affirmative petition seeking to enforce the no contest clause, this issue is not properly before the Court.

 

  1. Matter of the William Benedetti Trust
    26PR00785
    Petition to Appoint Successor Trustee of The William Benedetti Trust; and to Determine Title to and Compel Turnover of Trust Property Under Probate Code §§ 850 And 856, Including The William Benedetti Trust’s Distributive Share of the Proceeds of Sale of the Real Property at 23250 Maffei Road, Sonoma, California; for Double Damages (Prob. Code § 859), Treble Damages (Penal Code § 496), and Punitive Damages; and for Conversion, Money Had and Received, Civil Conspiracy, And Imposition Of a Constructive Trust

Tentative Ruling: This matter is CONTINUED to February 19, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 63 for the reasons set forth below.

The petitioners assert the trust does not designate a successor to Rock Koch, but this is false. Per Article 4 of Willie’s Trust, Westamerica Bank, of Suisun City, CA, is the named successor to Rock Koch. Pursuant to California Probate Code (Prob C) §15660(b), Westamerica Bank must be the successor trustee. There is no indication that Westamerica Bank has declined to serve in the papers. Furthermore, notice is deficient because Westamerica Bank has not received notice of this petition.

The balance of the petition will trail the outcome of the petition regarding Walter’s Trust under case number 26PR00849. The Court cannot determine the beneficiaries of Walter’s Trust entitled to notice of this petition (pursuant to Prob C §1208(b)) without first deciding whether it can determine the beneficiaries of Walter’s Trust in the context of the 26PR00849 petition. The Court also cannot determine that Willie’s Trust (or William Benedetti) has any interest in the res of Walter’s Trust without first deciding whether it can determine the terms of Walter’s Trust in the context of the 26PR00849 petition.

 

  1. Matter of The Naidorf Survivor’s Trust
    26PR00811
    Petition for Order Confirming Trust Asset

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED as to proposed orders number 1 and 2. Proposed order number 3 is DENIED. Federal law prohibits trusts from holding an IRA. See Reich v. Reich (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1282, 1291.

 

  1. Matter of Susan S. Simon Trust
    26PR00813
    Fifth and Final Account and Report of the Trustee of the Robert Prushko Revocable Trust and Petition for its Settlement; Request for Allowance of Fees to the Trustee’s Attorney; Request to Reimburse Legal Costs Advanced; Request for Final Distributions to the Trust Beneficiaries; Trustee’s Request for Authorization to Retain Reserve Fund and for Discharge of Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged July 7, 2026.

 

  1. Cons of Robert Prushko
    SPR53186
    Fifth and Final Account and Report of the Trustee of the Robert Prushko Revocable Trust and Petition for its Settlement; Request for Allowance of Fees to the Trustee’s Attorney; Request to Reimburse Legal Costs Advanced; Request for Final Distributions to the Trust Beneficiaries; Trustee’s Request for Authorization to Retain Reserve Fund and for Discharge of Trustee

Tentative Ruling: The Honorable Judge Rene Auguste Chouteau signed the Order Settling Fifth and Final Account, etc., on July 2, 2026. There are no outstanding issues related to the petition. This hearing is DROPPED FROM CALENDAR.

***End of Tentative Rulings***