Petition to contest trust amendments and trustee’s notification, and compel actions
July 13, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
12. 26PR0153 IN THE MATTER OF D.J. AND L.J. CHASE FAMILY 1988 REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED DECEMBER 27, 1988, INCLUDING THE DANIEL J. CHASE SURVIVING SPOUSE’S TRUST AND THE FAMILY BYPASS TRUST PETITION TO CONTEST TRUST AMENDMENTS AND TRUSTEE’S NOTIFICATION, AND COMPEL ACTIONS
Pending before the court is the petition of Scott Alan Chase and Daniel Lee Chase (collectively, “petitioners”), pursuant to Probate Code section 17200, et seq.,1 seeking a determination that the January 28, 2026, trustee’s notification was materially defective under section 16061.7 and therefore, did not trigger the 120-day limitations period for petitioners to contest the trust under section 16061.8. (Petn., ¶¶ 43-44.)
Alternatively, petitioners seek to assert a timely claim contesting the validity of certain trust amendments, and request that the court determine construction of the trust, compel accounting, tracing, and restoration, and impose a surcharge. (Petn., ¶ 45.)
Proof of service filed May 28, 2026, indicates the petition and notice of hearing were served upon the trustee, all beneficiaries, and all other persons whose right, title, or interest would be affected by the petition. (Petn., ¶ 124; see, § 17203.) To date, no opposition has been filed.
When a trust becomes irrevocable, section 16061.7 requires the trustee to serve a notice advising, among other things, that any contest to the trust must be filed within 120 days. Petitioners claim the trustee’s notice issued by respondent James Robert Johnson on January 28, 2026, is invalid because: (1) the notice did not inform petitioners that they are entitled, upon reasonable request to the trustee, to receive from the trustee a true and complete copy of the terms of the trust; (2) the declaration of mailing the notice omits the date of mailing and date of execution; (3) the notice’s references to “the Trust” is vague and ambiguous because it is unclear whether the trustee was referring to the Survivor’s Trust, the Family Bypass Trust, or any other portions of the trust estate; (4) the notice identifies respondent James Johnson as trustee of “the Trust,” while other communications reportedly take the position that he is trustee only of the Survivor’s Trust (and not the Family Bypass Trust); and (5) the notice and transmittal materials indicate petitioners may not have received a true and complete copy of all trust terms. (Petn., ¶ 42.)
Section 16061.8’s 120-day statute of limitations begins to run on the date a valid section 16061.7 notice is served on the recipient. (§ 16061.8.) The court agrees with petitioners that the declaration of mailing does not include the date the trustee’s notice was mailed or the date the declaration was executed. (See Petn., Ex. A.)
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?”
Without any other evidence before the court
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code.
July 13, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
showing when the trustee’s notification was served, the court finds that petitioners have demonstrated the trustee’s notification dated January 28, 2026, is insufficient to trigger the 120- day statute of limitations against them.
Where the court determines that the notice otherwise required is insufficient in the particular circumstances, the court may require that further or additional notice, including a longer period of notice, be given. (§ 1202.) The trustee shall serve section 16061.7 notification upon both petitioners within 60 days of the notice of entry of order.
Based on the court’s finding that the section 16061.7 notice issued January 28, 2026, is invalid, the court does not reach petitioners’ alternative claims in their petition at this time.
TENTATIVE RULING #11: THE PETITION IS GRANTED. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE TRUSTEE NOTIFICATION DATED JANUARY 28, 2026, IS INSUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER THE 120-DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST PETITIONERS UNDER PROBATE CODE SECTION 16061.8. THE TRUSTEE SHALL SERVE PROBATE CODE SECTION 16061.7 NOTIFICATION UPON BOTH PETITIONERS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999).
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.
LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILLL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
25