Motion to substitute Angel Castro as personal representative for Respondent's estate
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 2, Honorable Amber Rosen, Presiding Audrey Nakamoto, Courtroom Clerk
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone 408.882-2120
PROBATE LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: August 17, 2026 TIME: 10:00 A.M.
TO CONTEST THE RULING: YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING OR NO OBJECTIONS WILL BE HEARD – see California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Civil Local Rule 8.D:
(1) Call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. (2) Notify the other side by phone or email before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to appear and contest the ruling
FINAL ORDERS: The prevailing party shall prepare the order unless otherwise ordered. (See California Rule of Court 3.1312.)
TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING: The Court strongly prefers in person appearances. If you must appear virtually, click on the below link or copy and paste into your internet browser and scroll down to Department 2. https://www.scscourt.org/general_info/ra_teams/video_hearings_teams.shtml
COURT REPORTERS: The court does not provide official court reporters for civil/probate law and motion hearings. See court website for policy and forms for court reporters at hearing
State and local Court Rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a Court order.
TROUBLESHOOTING TENTATIVE RULINGS If do not see this week’s tentative rulings, they have either not yet been posted or your web browser cache (temporary internet files) is accessing a prior week’s rulings. “REFRESH” or “QUIT” your browser and reopen it, or adjust your internet settings to see only the current version of the web page. Your browser will otherwise access old information from old cookies even after the current week’s rulings have been posted.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24PR197289 BETTS REVOCABLE Click or scroll to line 1 for tentative ruling. Court TRUST, dated November 6, will issue the final order. 1984 LINE 2 LINE 3
Calendar line 1 Case Name: BETTS REVOCABLE TRUST, dated November 6, 1984 Case No.: 24PR197289
INTRODUCTION
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?”
Married couple Roy William Betts (“Roy”) and Ikeda Yamada Betts (“Ikeda”)1 executed the Betts Revocable Trust in 1984. After Roy’s death, Ikeda amended the trust to make her caregiver, Roberto Aguilar (“Respondent”) a beneficiary. This case arises from a petition filed by Roy’s son and Ikeda’s stepson, Russell John Betts (“Petitioner”) to invalidate Ikeda’s amendment based on incapacity and undue influence and to remove Respondent as trustee. Respondent filed an opposition to the petition. Respondent passed away intestate on October 30, 2025. Currently before the court is a motion by Angel Castro (“Castro”), personal representative for Respondent’s estate, to substitute into the action in place of Respondent. The motion is unopposed.
DISCUSSION I. Legal Background “On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 377.41.) II. Merits of the Motion Castro, Respondent’s nephew, sought and received appointment as personal representative for Respondent’s estate in docket 26PR201983. (See Declaration of Angel Castro in Support of Motion, ¶¶ 4-5.) Castro seeks to substitute in as respondent in this action. In support of his motion, he has provided Decedent’s death certificate and a copy of the letters of administration showing his appointment as personal representative. (See id., Exs. A&B.)
Here, although Castro does not address this point, Petitioner’s petition does not seek a money judgment against Respondent; it seeks invalidation of the trust amendment executed by Ikeda and removal of Respondent as trustee. Accordingly, compliance with the creditor claims requirement is inapplicable. Additionally, the court finds that the claim for invalidation of the amendment does not abate with the death of the respondent, another point Castro does not address. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 377.20 [“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.”].) Because at least one claim in this action survives Respondent’s death and Castro, as the personal representative is the person with authority to substitute in for Respondent, the motion is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION The motion is GRANTED.
1 Some of the individuals share the same last name, the court uses first names. No disrespect is intended.