IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST

25PR002411: IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Movant and Respondent Charles P. Puett’s (“Respondent”) special motion to strike (“anti-SLAPP motion”) is DENIED as follows.

Respondent objects to Petitioner Scott Kiernan’s (“Petitioner”) opposition memorandum on the grounds that it exceeds the page limit pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d). (Reply, 1:18-26.) The Court in its discretion, treating the opposition as a latefiled paper, considered the opposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(g).)

Background

Respondent is the co-settlor and surviving settlor of the Puett Family Trust dated February 28, 2007, which Respondent created with his spouse, Betsy D. Puett, who were married from December 27, 1997 until Ms. Puett’s death on November 9, 2024.

Prior to Ms. Puett’s passing, she and Petitioner executed an amendment on March 10, 2017. The trust was restated on December 7, 2017, and amended again on November 7, 2024.

At issue in this matter are amendments to the trust and pour over wills executed on November 7, 2024. Respondent indicates the documents were procured and executed under fraud by Petitioner, who is Ms. Puett’s son and Respondent’s stepson. (Declaration of Respondent, ¶ 14.)

As background, when Ms. Puett died on November 9, 2024, Respondent became the sole trustee, until his removal on June 10, 2025 due to his incapacity. Petitioner then became successor trustee pursuant to the trust terms. On July 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition to Determine Ownership of Real Property and Personal Property as it relates to the trust. Respondent filed an objection to Petitioner’s petition on August 25, 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR002411: IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

On December 3, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Order Enforcing No-Contest Clause. Respondent filed this anti-SLAPP on January 28, 2026 on the grounds that the petition arises from his protected conduct: his objection to Petitioner’s petition to determine ownership of property.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 was enacted “to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits that are brought to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056.) The statute shall be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a).)

A court’s review of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-prong process. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88.) First, a court must determine whether the defendant “has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from [this statutorily] protected activity. A defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that the act underlying the plaintiff’s cause fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e).” (Id., citing Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1043.)

Pursuant to the language of the statute, an “‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e).)

Second, if the defendant meets their burden as to the first prong, a court must then determine whether the plaintiff has “established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1).) In this step, a plaintiff “need only establish that his or her claim has ‘minimal merit’ [citation] to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP.” (Dae v. Traver (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 455.)

“[I]n order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing, the plaintiff need only have stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim. Put another way, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.’” (Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th 82 at p. 88-89 [internal citations omitted].)

Discussion

First Prong: Arising From Protected Activity “The ‘arising from’ requirement requires more than simply some relationship between the cause of action and the protected activity. It is not enough that the cause of action

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR002411: IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

was in response to or triggered by the protected activity. [Citation.] ‘[A] cause of action arises from protected conduct if the wrongful, injurious act(s) alleged by the plaintiff constitute protected conduct.’” (Greco v. Greco (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 810, 820 [italics in original].)

The wrongful, injurious conduct alleged in the petition for order enforcing the no contest provision are Movant’s objection to Petitioner’s petition for order determining ownership of real and personal property (filed 8/25/2025), and Movant’s verified complaint for damages in Sacramento Superior Court (filed 11/5/2025). (Petition for Order Enforcing No-Contest Clause, ¶¶ 10-11.) A court filing constitutes a written statement made before a judicial proceeding. (Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th 82, 90.)

The Court notes Respondent’s objection filed 8/25/2025 stated that Respondent “will supplement this objection with substantive objections at the earliest opportunity.” (Objection, 8/25/2026, ¶ 6.) Respondent filed further objection on 1/7/2026, which was filed after Petitioner’s petition for order enforcing the no contest provision

Respondent’s objections and verified complaint are protected activity.

Second Prong: Likelihood of Success on the Merits The burden therefore shifts to Petitioner to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his petition for order enforcing the no contest clause. “If the plaintiff ‘can show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the cause of action is not meritless’ and will not be stricken.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820.) Courts “neither ‘weigh credibility, [nor] compare the weight of the evidence. Rather, [courts] accept as true the evidence favorable to the [Petitioner] [citation] and evaluate the [Respondent’s] evidence only to determine if it has defeated that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law.’” (Id.)

A no contest clause is enforceable against a “direct contest that is brought without probable cause.” (Prob. Code, § 21311.) Probate Code section 21310 defines ‘direct contest’ as: “[A] contest that alleges the invalidity of a protected instrument or one or more of its terms, based on one or more of the following grounds: (1) Forgery. (2) Lack of due execution. (3) Lack of capacity. (4) Menace, duress, fraud, or undue influence. (5) Revocation of a will pursuant to Section 6120, revocation of a trust pursuant to Section 15401, or revocation of an instrument other than a will or trust pursuant to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR002411: IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

procedure for revocation that is provided by statute or by the instrument. (6) Disqualification of a beneficiary under Section 6112, 21350, or 21380.” (Prob. Code, § 21310(b).)

A ‘protected instrument’ is “[t]he instrument that contains the no contest clause” or “[a]n instrument that is in existence on the date that the instrument containing the no contest clause is executed and is expressly identified in the no contest clause, either individually or as part of an identifiable class of instruments, as being governed by the no contest clause.” (Id., at subd. (e).)

For purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion, in order to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the party seeking to enforce a no contest petition is required to provide sufficient evidence showing that the respondent contested a trust without probable cause. (Key v. Tyler, 34 Cal. App. 5th 505, 531-539.). “[P]robable cause exists if, at the time of filing a contest, the facts known to the contestant would cause a reasonable person to believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requested relief will be granted after an opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” (Prob. Code, § 21311, at subd. (b).)

Section 13.8 of the trust, whose language was not altered by the subsequent amendments or restatements, states in full:

“13.8 No Contest Clause. We intend to preserve the distribution scheme set forth in our estate plan and prevent our beneficiaries, heirs, and other persons from frustrating our testamentary intent. If a beneficiary of any trust created under this or any existing trust instrument, singly or in conjunction with any other person(s), takes any of the following actions constituting a “contest,” then we cancel all interest that we have provided for that beneficiary: a. Without probable cause, files a court pleading that challenges the validity of any existing (i) trust instrument, (ii) Will, (iii) beneficiary designation for accounts held by us personally or the trust; (iv) any instrument making a transfer to the trust; or (v) any term of the aforementioned instruments, based on: 1.

Forgery; 2. Lack of due execution; 3. Lack of capacity; 4. Menace, duress, fraud, or undue influence; or 5. Revocation of a Will pursuant to Probate Code section 6120, the trust pursuant to Probate Code section 15401, or an instrument pursuant to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR002411: IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

procedures for revocation provided by that instrument or statute; b. Files a court pleading that seeks to challenge a transfer of property to or from the trust, either of us individually, or either of our estates on the grounds that it was not the transferor’s property at the time of transfer; or c. Files a claim against the trust or our estate, or prosecutes an action based on a quantum meruit theory, constructive trust theory, Marvin theory, or any similar theory, or asserting that we have agreed to devise anything to that person or to pay that person for services rendered, under an alleged oral agreement, or an alleged written agreement to be proved by oral evidence, whether the court finds an agreement exists.

The trustee shall treat the contesting beneficiary as if he or she died before the creation of the Trust, and neither the contesting beneficiary nor any of his or her issue shall take any interest under the trust and my estate. The trustee may defend, at the expense of the trust estate, any contest or other attack of any nature on the trust or any of its provisions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any disclaimer by any person of any benefit under the trust or under any Will.” (Petition to Determine Ownership of Real Property and Personal Property, filed 7/16/2025, Ex.

C, p. 3 [emphasis added].)

Under Section 13.1(a) of the trust and Probate Code Section 21311, a no contest provision may be enforced against a beneficiary who files the requisite court pleading without probable cause. “[A] direct contest, if ‘brought without probable cause,’ provides a legally sufficient basis to enforce a no contest clause.” (Key v. Tyler (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 365, 369, citing Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a)(1).)

Respondent attempts to distance himself from a beneficiary designation by emphasizing his role as co-settlor. (Motion, 11:27-28, 12:17-18.) However, “[a]s it relates to a trust, [‘beneficiary’] means a person who has any present or future interest, vested or contingent.” (Prob. Code, § 24.) Because Respondent is a person who presently receives distributions of income and principal and has an interest in the trust’s assets, Respondent is considered a beneficiary for purposes of Section 13.8 of the trust.

Further, Respondent argues he “challenges the Assignment of Inheritance and the Betsy D. Puett Separate Knaggs Trust,” not the Puett Family Trust, which is subject to the no contest provision. However, Respondent’s filed objection states, “[Petitioner] procured the estate plan purportedly executed on November 7, 2024 and now seeks to use the estate plan he procured to take possession and control of all of [Respondent’s] assets.” (Objection, 8/25/2026, 1:19-21.) Respondent alleges that he “objects to each and every factual allegation and legal argument contained in [Petitioner’s] Petition. (Id., ¶ 3.) Respondent’s later objection claims Petitioner “orchestrated fraudulent estate planning documents,” referring to the Third Amendment signed on November 7, 2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR002411: IN THE MATTER OF: PUETT FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

(Objection, 1/7/2026, 2:21-22.)

Thus, Respondent’s objections are direct contests of a protected instrument under Probate Code, section 21310, subds. (b) and (e), because they challenge the factual and legal allegations, including the legitimacy of the Third Amendment, which is a protected instrument, on the basis of fraud. Further, according to Respondent, the civil complaint “alleg[es] elder financial abuse,” “undue influence, [and] fraud.” (MPA, 3:6-7, 7:5.)

Petitioner represents that the trust was freely amended by the settlors on November 7, 2024, and Petitioner denies telling the settlors “We don’t have time – just sign [the amendment and estate documents].” (Pet. Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Petitioner also represents that the trust was not amended to Respondent’s detriment, but to his benefit. (MPA, 6:24- 7:1.) Indeed, Petitioner asserts that the earlier trust terms permitted immediate distribution of assets to Petitioner and his brother upon Decedent’s death, but now those assets will be distributed upon Respondent’s death, which benefits Respondent, (Pet. Decl., ¶ 6 [“The Third Amendment of the PFT ensured that if the PFT held Knaggs Assets, which under the Second Amendment of the Trust would have been immediately distributed to me and Chris upon my mom’s death, they would now be distributed to us only after the death of the surviving spouse.”].)

These circumstances were known to Respondent, as he alleged to be present for several of these interactions and discussions. (Pet. Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.) Thus, construing the facts and allegations favorable to Petitioner (Oasis West Realty, supra, 51 Cal.4th at 820) the facts known to Respondent at the time the contest was made would not cause a reasonable person to believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requested relief will be granted after an opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (Prob. Code, § 21311, at subd. (b).) Petitioner has demonstrated that one or more parts of his petition has ‘minimal merit.’ (Dae v. Traver, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at 455.)

Because Petitioner has shown ‘minimal merit’ in his claims, demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits for purposes of this anti-SLAPP analysis, the motion must be denied.

Disposition

The motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)