In re: The Trudi Tucker Living Trust

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Freeze Trust Account in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SAMUEL K. SWENSON, ESQ. AND THE SWENSON LAW FIRM; REQUEST TO STRIKE COMPROMISED FILINGS; REQUEST TO FREEZE TRUST ACCOUNTS AND DEFENSE PAYMENTS

Filed: 7/21/2026

Re: The Trudi Tucker Living Trust

Moving Party: Sherri Arfsten, Petitioner In Pro Per

Responding Party: Wendi Heise, Respondent Attorney: Nicholas D. Yonano, (916) 817-4422

Responding Party: Walter E. Price, Successor Trustee Attorney: Samuel K. Swenson, (916) 333-0833

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

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Freeze Trust Account in Department 129

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.

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 Petitioner Sherri Arfsten’s (“Petitioner”) motion to freeze trust assets is denied as follows.

On March 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for suspension of ‘acting trustee’ and Respondent Wendi Heise (“Respondent”), appointment of temporary neutral trustee, freeze of trust assets, surcharge, double damages, and related relief. On March 18, 2026, Respondent filed a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained in part.

Petitioner alleges settlor Trudi Tucker died on June 24, 2026 and now seeks to disqualify Trustee Walter E. Price’s (“Trustee”) counsel Samuel K. Swenson due to his purported role in the allegedly invalid trust instruments at issue in this matter.

Citing to Comden v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 906 and Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, Petitioner argues that representation of Trustee Walter E. Price (“Trustee”) by attorney Mr. Swenson violates the advocate-witness rule. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 8:4-12.)

Trustee opposes on the grounds that the advocate-witness rule is not violated where the attorney has obtained informed written consent from the client pursuant to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7. (Opposition, 5:25-6:5.) Also citing to Kennedy v. Eldridge, Trustee indicates disqualification applies only where counsel is a necessary witness “whose testimony cannot be supplied through other evidence.” (Id., at 6:6-17.)

“Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing effect on future proceedings.” (Lopez v. Lopez (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 412, 422.) “[A] court retains discretion to disqualify a likely advocatewitness as counsel, notwithstanding client consent, where there is ‘a convincing demonstration of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Freeze Trust Account in Department 129

detriment to the opponent or injury to the integrity of the judicial process.’” (Id., at p. 423.) Here, Trustee’s counsel points to several independent sources who may have knowledge regarding Ms. Tucker’s capacity and alleged susceptibilities to undue influence, including medical professionals, hospice caregivers, and the notary who authenticated the trust instruments. Petitioner, in part, argues that Trustee’s counsel ‘concealed’ a sale of real property, while Trustee argues this sale was done by a competent settlor during her lifetime, and no concealment of the sale occurred. Petitioner has not made a “convincing demonstration” that Trustee’s counsel causes detriment to her petition or to the integrity of the judicial process. (Id.) The request for disqualification of Trustee’s counsel is denied.

Next, sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 are likewise denied. “A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7 (c)(1).)

In this case, Petitioner’s motion for sanctions was not filed separately from other motions or requests. The motion for sanctions also includes a motion to disqualify counsel, freeze assets, compel an account, and other requests for relief. (MPA, 7:9-14.)

Further, “[u]nder section 128.7, ‘[a] party seeking sanctions must follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party must serve on the offending party a motion for sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending party begins a [21]-day safe harbor period during which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the court. (Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 698, citing Malovec v. Hamrell (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440 [emphasis added].) The Court’s records indicate the motion was filed on July 21, 2026, and there is no proof of service indicating the motion was served in accordance with the safe harbor period.

Although Trustee made no objection as to the service of the motion, Petitioner has not established compliance with the two-step, 21-day safe harbor period procedure. Notice requirements of section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1), are mandatory, and “neither the parties nor the trial court [are] permitted to disregard them.” (Id., at p. 700.) Because the motion was not filed separately from other requests and because Petitioner did not comply with the mandatory notice provision in Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7(c)(1), the motion for sanctions is DENIED.

The Court, in its discretion, declines to freeze trust assets, compel an accounting, or make any referral to the State Bar of California at this time.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR000648: IN RE: THE TRUDI TUCKER LIVING TRUST 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Freeze Trust Account in Department 129