SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ORDERS
[2] STATUS HEARING RE: FINAL DISTRIBUTION
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. Pursuant to Probate Code section 12200, a personal representative is required to either petition for an order for final distribution of the estate or make a report of status of administration not later than one year after the date of issuance of letters. There is no petition for final distribution or status report on file. Appearance is required to show the condition of the estate, the reasons why the estate cannot be distributed and closed, and an estimate of time needed to close administration of the estate. (Prob. Code, § 12202, subd. (a).)
In The Matter of Karen K. Carson Revocable Trust 26PR000040
[1] SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ORDERS
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. Petitioner is ordered to provide code-compliant Notice of the continued hearing to all parties identified in the Second Amended Petition as being entitled thereto.
There remains no sufficient proof of service of the Amended Petition and no proof of service of the Notice of Hearing in the Court’s file. (See Probate Code § 17203 [requiring 30 days’ notice of hearing on trust matters].) The Court notes that Petitioner filed a Proof of Service of the Amended Petition on July 13, 2026 (7/13 POS). However, the 7/13 POS does not provide proof that the Amended Petition was served on all persons listed in the Amended Petition as entitled to notice. (Compare id. with Amended Petition at 11:2.)
Specifically, there is no proof of service of the Amended Petition on Ian Lowney, Colin Lowney, Maria Ramirez, Teresa Gonzalez-Ramirez, or Suesan [sic] Kelly Hunt. (See Amended Petition at 11:2.) Moreover, there remains no proof of service of Notice of the instant hearing. The Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a matter that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question. (See Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05
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?”
[2] RESPONDENT SUSANNAH G. CARSON’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A.
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.
A. NATURE OF MOTION
Respondent Susannah G. Carson moves, pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure section 128.7 (Section 128.7), for an order imposing monetary sanctions, in the form of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, against Petitioner John P. Lowney, III and his attorney Kevin R. Snyder, jointly and severally, in the amount of $15,896.50. Ms. Carson so moves on grounds that Petitioner filed the Second Amended Petition for an improper purpose.
B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Lowney commenced the instant action by filing, on February 19, 2026, a petition for orders: (1) invalidating a trust amendment based on lack of capacity, undue influence, and fraud; (2) removing Susannah G. Carson as Trustee; (3) cancelling the subject instrument; and (4) determining title to trust assets.
It appears uncontroverted that the subject Trust was an estate planning vehicle for decedent Karen K. Carson (Decedent), and that Decedent was survived by three children: Mr. Lowney, Respondent Susannah Carson, and Katherine K. Sukla. Pursuant to the allegations of the Petition, Mr. Lowry lived with, and served as Decedent’s primary caregiver from June 29, 2019 through December 2024. (See id. at ¶ 4.) At that time, Susannah Carson removed Mr. Lowney from the residence and took over caretaking duties. (See id. at ¶ 5.) In January 2025, Decedent executed a trust restatement that disinherited Mr. Lowney and Ms. Sukla. (See id. at ¶ 6.) The gravamen of the Petition was that the restatement was the product of undue influence on Decedent by Susannah Carson.
On March 23, 2026, Susannah G. Carson demurred to the Petition arguing that each cause of action was time barred, pursuant to Probate Code section 16061.8, based on the assertion that “co-counsel of record for Respondent, Lori Hunt, served all heirs, including but not limited to, Petitioner John P. Lowney a valid, timely and complete ‘Notification by Trustee’ on April 5, 2025, disclosing a true and complete copy of the Trust.” (Support Memorandum filed in support of Demurrer at 7:7-10.)
On April 14, 2026, Petitioner filed an opposition to the demurrer. However, on April 15, 2026, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition.
By Minute Order of May 6, 2026 (5/6 M.O.), the Court directed the Clerk to strike the Amended Petition on grounds that it was filed without leave of Court.
That Minute Order also addressed the pending demurrer. It provides, in part, as follows.
The matter came on originally for hearing on April 28, 2026. Attorneys David Balter and Nicholas Conti appeared on behalf of Respondent, and attorney Kevin Snyder appeared on behalf of Petitioner. At the hearing, Petitioner and
3