IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

DEMURRER, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS

Filed: 3/18/2026

Re: The Trudi Tucker Living Trust

Moving Party: Wendy Heise, Respondent In pro per

Responding Party: Sherri Arfsten, Petitioner In pro per

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 129

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Movant and Respondent Wendy Heise’s (“Movant”) demurrer, motion to dismiss and expunge lis pendens is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 4.02.01(D) and 1.06(D). Movant is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Movant is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, Movant shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

On March 9, 2026, Petitioner Sherri Arfsten filed a Petition for suspension of acting trustee Wendi Heise, appointment of temporary neutral trustee, freeze of trust assets, surcharge, double damages, and related relief. On March 18, 2026, Respondent Wendi Heise filed this demurrer on the grounds that the petition fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10(e).

The Court notes there is no notice of hearing on file. Defective notice generally deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Similarly, no proof of service of a notice of hearing appears in the Court’s records indicating Movant served her motion on any parties entitled to notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005. The proof of service, filed 3/24/2026, indicates only that a “Demurrer, Motion to Dismiss, Expunge Lis Pendens, Response and Objection” and a “Declaration of Wendi Heise and Declaration of Trudi Tucker” were served. Movant was required, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, to file a proof of service of the moving papers, including the notice of hearing no later than five court days prior to the hearing. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Id.) However, in light of Petitioner’s response on the merits, the Court considered the moving papers and opposition.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 129

Next, no meet and confer efforts by Movant were provided to this Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41 (a) [“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Emphasis added.)].) However, because “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer,” the demurrer is ruled upon as follows. (Id., at subd. (a)(4).)

A demurrer may be sustained if “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).) The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)

The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 732-733.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Movant first demurs to the petition on the basis that she is not the “acting trustee” as alleged, and therefore cannot be removed or suspended. Citing to the Petition’s Exhibit B, p. 1, ¶ 3, which states Movant is fourth in line as successor trustee upon the death or incapacity of the grantor, Movant alleges that “because [Movant] is not the trustee, these claims fail to state a cause of action.” (Motion, 3:12-13.) Petitioner’s petition does not clearly articulate when the grantor allegedly became incapacitated, or when Movant assumed the role as successor trustee.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 129

Accepting the allegations in the petition and its exhibits as true, Petitioner has not stated sufficient facts establishing Movant is the acting trustee, and thus Movant cannot be suspended as successor trustee. (Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at 591.) The demurrer to the cause of action to suspend Movant as “acting trustee” is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. A demurrer is properly sustained without leave to amend where there is no “reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Movant makes the remaining arguments: that Petitioner lacks standing, the claims are barred, specific claims fail as a matter of law, the financial elder abuse claims are unsupported, the accounting demand exceeds probate jurisdiction, and the prohibition on the use of trust fundsis moot. It is unclear whether the remaining arguments relate to Movant’s demurrer or motion to dismiss because no legal basis to sustain a demurrer or grant a motion to dismiss are provided for those claims. Without a discernible legal basis or theory, the Court cannot grant Movant any relief as to those claims. (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.) To the extent these arguments were made in support of Movant’s demurrer, they are OVERRULED. To the extent these arguments were made in support of a motion to dismiss, they are DENIED.

Regarding the motion to expunge lis pendens, Code of Civil Procedure, section 405.21, states, “[a] notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless it is signed by a party acting in propria persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.21.) A party or nonparty may file an application to a court for expungement “[a]t any time after notice of pendency of action has been recorded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30 [emphasis added.) Thus, even if the above defects were not present, the matter is unripe, because Respondent has not yet recorded a lis pendens. (Reply, filed 5/19/2026, 6:10-21.) The motion to expunge is denied.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED IN PART without leave to amend. The motion to dismiss and expunge lis pendens is DENIED.

Again, Movant is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Movant is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, Movant shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)