In the Matter of the Estate of JoAnn M. Spaulding

24PR002218: ESTATE OF: JOANN M. SPAULDING 08/19/2026 General Probate Motion in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. 24PR002218 AND 26CV000390

Filed: 2/20/2026

Re: The Estate of JoAnn Spaulding

Moving Party: Matthew Spaulding, Administrator Attorney: Kent Meyer, (916) 599-7297

Responding Party: Richard Spaulding Attorney: Allan Frumpkin, (916) 660-9298

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.

24PR002218: ESTATE OF: JOANN M. SPAULDING 08/19/2026 General Probate Motion 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 Administrator Matthew Spaulding’s (“Administrator”) motion to consolidate is DENIED as follows.

On October 29, 2024, Letters of Administration were issued to Administrator in this matter. On January 7, 2026, Richard Spaulding filed a verified civil complaint seeking to quiet title, and alleging financial elder abuse and breach of fiduciary duty by Administrator. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 4:24-5:2.) Richard Spaulding is the son of Decedent JoAnn Spaulding, but not a named beneficiary under her holographic will dated April 4, 2022.

Administrator seeks consolidation of the probate action, Sacramento Superior Court case number 24PR002218, and the civil action, Sacramento Superior Court case number 26CV000390, for all purposes, with the lead case being the probate action. Mr. Spaulding opposes on the grounds that he filed the civil action for the purpose of obtaining a jury trial for his causes of action, which is unavailable in the probate court. (Opposition, 2:2-3.)

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)

“A notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1).)

Administrator’s notice of motion to consolidate meets none of the aforementioned requirements.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002218: ESTATE OF: JOANN M. SPAULDING 08/19/2026 General Probate Motion in Department 129

Defective notice deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) The motion is denied on this basis.

Further, even assuming all applicable requirements were met, “[i]t is well established that there is no right to jury trial in probate proceedings unless provided for by statute.” (Prob. Code, § 825; Heiser v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 276, 279, citing Estate of Beach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 623, 642, Estate of Van Deusen (1947) 30 Cal.2d 285, 291, and 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Trial, § 79, p. 2913.) Here, Richard Spaulding indicates that prejudice may occur if the matters are consolidated because he filed the quiet title and elder abuse action in the civil court “expressly for the purpose of obtaining a jury trial.” (Opposition, 2:1-4, 16-17.)

In reply, Administrator states the Probate Code “does not state that a jury trial is prohibited” in actions to quiet title. Administrator argues that because Probate Code section 1000 indicates, “[e]xcept to the extent that this code provides applicable rules, the rules of practice applicable to civil actions...apply to, and constitute the rules of practice in, proceedings under this code,” the Probate Code, and thus consolidation, will not preclude Richard Spaulding’s civil claims from being heard by a jury. (Reply, 3:16-19.)

“Probate Code section 1000 does not create an independent right to a full trial whenever there is a contested issue of fact,” although a jury trial may be available in an action to quiet title as “the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply when the Probate Code is silent as to a particular rule of a procedure.” (Schwartz v. Schwartz (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 733, 742.) However, neither party addressed whether the probate court has jurisdiction over the elder abuse claim in the civil action.

The probate court has no concurrent jurisdiction over the elder abuse claim in the civil matter because there is no conservatorship proceeding that was initiated prior to the initiation of the action for elder abuse, therefore the elder abuse claim cannot be heard in the probate department. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.3(a); Conservatorship of Kayle (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1, 5; Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 434.)

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3(a) states, “[t]he department of the superior court having jurisdiction over probate conservatorships shall also have concurrent jurisdiction over civil actions and proceedings involving a claim for relief arising out of the abduction, as defined in Section 15610.06, or the abuse of an elderly or dependent adult, if a conservator has been appointed for the plaintiff prior to the initiation of the action for abuse.” (Emphasis added.) Kayle and Knox both acknowledge the prior appointment of a conservator in their respective matters. (Kayle, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 5; Knox, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 434.)

“Whether separate actions shall be consolidated for trial, or whether there shall be a severance and separate trials of issues in a single action, is matter within the discretion of the trial court.” (McArthur v. Shaffer (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 724, 727.) Because neither party has established that the probate court has jurisdiction over the elder abuse claim, the Court finds consolidation of these matters to probate court is improper. Further, contrary to Administrator’s suggestion, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002218: ESTATE OF: JOANN M. SPAULDING 08/19/2026 General Probate Motion in Department 129

Court sees no need to consolidate the cases for purposes of streamlining discovery.

The motion is denied.

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.)