DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PR000110·napa·Civil·Trust Administration
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

In The Matter of Spiers 2023 Revocable Trust

Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets

Hearing date
Jun 25, 2026
Department
A
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Ruling

Based on the report of the court investigator, the Court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the conservatee can communicate a desire to participate in the voting process, and therefore orders the conservatee’s right to register to vote shall be restored, pursuant to Elections Code section 2209, subdivision (b).”

In The Matter of The Lanuza Family Trust 26PR000105

PETITION TO DETERMINE INVALIDITY OF TRUST INSTRUMENT DATED AUGUST 13, 2025, FOR LACK OF CAPACITY AND UNDUE INFLUENCE, REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTING OF ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The parties shall attend prepared to discuss whether any other opposition, or other appearance is anticipated, whether the parties intend to submit on verified pleadings and affidavits (see Evangelho v. Presoto (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 615, 620), whether any discovery or other pre-hearing practice is anticipated, and whether the parties are willing to participate in informal settlement discussions or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Should any party desire an evidentiary hearing, the parties shall be prepared to provide the Court with an estimate for the length of the hearing, and to set the hearing on the Court’s calendar. Counsel are directed to meet and confer on the foregoing issues prior to the hearing.

In The Matter of Julie Huong Vu Revocable Trust 26PR000109

PETITION FOR ORDER INVALIDATING SECOND AMENDMENT TO TRUST BASED ON: (1) LACK OF CAPACITY; (2) UNDUE INFLUENCE; (3) FRAUD; AND AN ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The parties shall attend prepared to discuss whether any other opposition or appearance is anticipated, whether any discovery or other pre-hearing practice is anticipated, and whether the parties are willing to participate in informal settlement discussions or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings. The parties shall be prepared to provide the Court with an estimate for the length of the requested evidentiary hearing, and to set the hearing on the Court’s calendar. Counsel are directed to meet and confer on the foregoing issues prior to the hearing.

In The Matter of Spiers 2023 Revocable Trust 26PR000110

PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING TRUST ASSETS EFFECTIVELY TRANSFERRED TO TRUST

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED.

The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.

The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Conservatorship of April Lynn Kear PR24106

REVIEW HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING: After a review of the matter, the Court finds the Conservator is acting in the best interest of the Conservatee. Thus, the matter is set for a Review – Biennial hearing in two years, on June 27, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Court Investigator shall prepare a biennial investigator report for the next hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.

5

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share