Petition to Appoint Temp. Guardian of Person
were titled in the name of the decedent in that case, as an individual, on the date of death (Id. at p. 160), and were infamously nowhere described in that opinion as having been acquired after the settlor (named Mabee) executed the trust.
Further, the language comprising the general assignment clause in the trust did not include terms that could even remotely be considered to include prospective/after-acquired property: "The Grantor [(i.e., Mabee)], by the execution of this instrument, hereby assigns, grants and conveys to the Trustees of this instrument all of the Grantor's right, title and interest in and to all of his real and personal property, including all Tangible Personal Property, stocks, bonds, cash, mutual funds and promissory notes, all amounts on deposit from time to time at any bank, savings and loan association or investment institution, real property, leases on real property, interests in business entities and all other property owned by the Grantor, wherever situated .... The Grantor intends this assignment to be effective as of the date of this instrument even though other documents may be necessary to perfect title to such property in the name of the Trustees." (Id. at p. 159 [emphasis added].)
The facts were no different in Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 548. In that case, the only distinction is that an after-executed trust was at issue, but the real property was concretely owned by the settlor at the time of execution of both trusts under consideration. (Id. at p. 552 ["In 2009, Liebler executed the 2009 Trust. As noted in part I., ante, among other provisions, the 2009 Trust expressly transfers the property listed in Schedule A to the trust, and lists the Via Regla Property in Schedule A."].)
No other published case has addressed this issue, thus no published case supports the proposition that after-acquired property (even that titled in the name of settlor as an individual) can be affirmed a trust asset. In fact, there is no authority to even justify title taken in the name of the trust after execution of the trust, if language in the trust does not provide for additional property to be added in the future.
This outcome does not change because there exists a pour-over will. Assets that will eventually be 'poured over' into a trust cannot be transferred to that trust without the necessary probate process. (Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730, 744
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Thus, a party cannot "skip" probate, just because a pour-over will exists. As a result of the above authority, the inheritance property in this case cannot be taken in the name of the trust, because it vested after the trust was executed. Therefore, the Court cannot hold that property to be trust res until it is distributed to the trust via the Probate process from the Decedent's estate.
Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Lyllyana Ray Holt Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Lyllyana Ray Holt Case Number
Case Type Guardianship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 06/23/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Temp. Guardian of Person Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required.
The following must be submitted: Proof of Personal Service. Proof of timely personal service of the notice of hearing and a copy of the petition (Prob. Code, Sec. 1511) on Mother, OR Consent to Appointment of Guardian and Waiver of Notice (Judicial Council form GC-211) OR adequately supported request to dispense with notice supported by Declaration of Due Dilligence. (CRC 7.52; see Local Court form SC-6014).
Supplemental Declaration. The court may grant a petition for a temporary guardian only when good cause is shown. (Prob. Code, Sec. 2250.) Good cause may be found where the minor needs immediate protection from substantial harm. (See CRC, Rule 7.1012(b).) Absent exigent circumstances, the Petition will be denied. The Petition on file with the Court does not contain sufficient facts to constitute good cause. Petitioner must file a Supplemental Declaration to include facts showing good cause exists.