IN THE MATTER OF: THE ROBERT AND KATHLEEN SLATER LIVING TRUST

26PR001045: IN THE MATTER OF: THE ROBERT AND KATHLEEN SLATER LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 General Probate Notice of Demurrer of Respondent Shawn Paul Quinn to Petitioner Shari Landa's Petition for Order Invalidating Amended to Trus in Department 126

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF RESPONDENT SHAWN PAUL QUINN

MOTION FILED: 5/15/2026

RE: The Robert and Kathleen Slater Living Trust, dated May 30, 2003

MOVING PARTY: Respondent Shawn Paul Quinn Attorney: Melissa Yoest, (916) 957-5840

RESPONDING PARTY: Petitioner Shari Landa Attorney: Brooke Brigham, (925) 933-7777

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) 875-2526 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 126 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept126 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 5926 9604. 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

26PR001045: IN THE MATTER OF: THE ROBERT AND KATHLEEN SLATER LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 General Probate Notice of Demurrer of Respondent Shawn Paul Quinn to Petitioner Shari Landa's Petition for Order Invalidating Amended to Trus in Department 126

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 Respondent and Movant Shawn Paul Quinn’s (“Respondent”) demurrer to Petitioner Shari Landa’s (“Petitioner”) petition for order invalidating trust amendment is ruled upon as follows.

On April 16, 2026, Petitioner filed her petition seeking to invalidate a trust amendment purportedly executed in 2015 on the basis of fraud (forgery), undue influence, lack of capacity, and lack of due execution. The action arises from Decedent Robert Slater’s (“Decedent”) decline due to an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease, which was diagnosed in 2000. (Petition, ¶ 12.) Over the next decade, his condition deteriorated, and his surviving spouse Kathleen Slater placed Decedent in a care home in 2013 due to Decedent’s need for 24-hour care. (Petition, ¶¶ 13-16.) Decedent died in 2015, and Ms. Slater died in 2025. (Petition, ¶ 1.) Upon Ms. Slater’s death, Petitioner became the successor trustee of the trust. (Petition, ¶ 2, Exhibit A, section 1.4.)

On May 15, 2026, Respondent filed this demurrer to the petition on the following grounds: laches, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the fraud claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

On May 20, 2026, Petitioner’s counsel objected to the timeliness of the demurrer, claiming that Respondent’s counsel did not meet and confer in good faith “at least 5 days before filing the purported demurrer.” (Declaration of Brooke A. Brigham, ¶ 7.) Respondent concedes the meet and confer efforts occurred not “in person, by telephone, or by video conference,” as statutorily required, but by “written exchange” (email). (Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s Procedural Objections, 2:8-10.) Telephonic meet and confer efforts occurred on May 19, 2026. Regardless, insufficient meet and confer efforts may not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR001045: IN THE MATTER OF: THE ROBERT AND KATHLEEN SLATER LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 General Probate Notice of Demurrer of Respondent Shawn Paul Quinn to Petitioner Shari Landa's Petition for Order Invalidating Amended to Trus in Department 126

The declaration by Petitioner’s counsel also objects to the timeliness of the meet and confer efforts. This is rejected as, for purposes of a demurrer in a probate proceeding, “parties should meet and confer at least five days before the probate hearing date.” (Goebner v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1113 [Emphasis added.].) Meet and confer efforts concluded on May 19, 2026, and the hearing was not until June 2, 2026. Thus, the meet and confer efforts were not untimely and the Court proceeds on the merits of the demurrer.

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.)

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.)

A party may demur to a pleading or cause of action if “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10 (e).) “The defense of laches can be taken advantage of by demurrer. Such a defense is, in substance, that the complaint does not show equity, or fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Superior California Fruit Land Co. v. Grossman (1916) 32 Cal.App. 357, 361.) “The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” (Estate of Kampen (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 971, 997, citing Johnson v.

City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 68, Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 351, 359.) “[T]he existence of laches is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances.” (Id.)

Here, Respondent argues Petitioner and counsel received copies of the trust and knew of the trust amendment at issue since 2021. Respondent further argues the petition could have been filed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR001045: IN THE MATTER OF: THE ROBERT AND KATHLEEN SLATER LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 General Probate Notice of Demurrer of Respondent Shawn Paul Quinn to Petitioner Shari Landa's Petition for Order Invalidating Amended to Trus in Department 126

prior to Ms. Slater’s death in 2025, but was not filed until six months after the death. (MPA 6:15- 16.) Thus, according to Respondent, the failure to file a petition between 2021 and Ms. Slater’s death constitutes an unreasonable delay. A delay may be measured from the time the party knew or should have known of the alleged claims. (Drake v. Pinkham (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 400, 407.) However, Drake v. Pinkham also states that a beneficiary lacks standing to challenge a trust, pursuant to Probate Code sections 17200 and 15800, “so long as the ‘trust is revocable and the person holding the power to revoke the trust is competent ’” (Id., at p. 408.)

The petition is silent on whether Ms. Slater was competent or incompetent, and thus Respondent’s theory that Petitioner had standing to bring the petition prior to Ms. Slater’s death is not readily apparent on the face of the petition. The petition states only that the beneficiaries were provided notice pursuant to Probate Code sections 16061.5 and 16061.7 on December 19, 2025. (Petition, ¶ 2, Exhibit D.) Because “the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded,” the Court accepts that notice was provided in 2025 as true, and the defense of laches is not apparent on the face of the pleading. (Blank v.

Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The demurrer on this basis is overruled.

Further, an action on the ground of fraud or mistake has a statute of limitations of three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338(d).) Petitioner indicates the alleged forgery should have been discovered “no later than November 2021.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 9:17.) The petition and supporting exhibits do not indicate when these exhibits were provided to Respondent. Thus, again, taking the facts and exhibits as true, the demurrer on this basis is similarly overruled. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Finally, Respondent argues each cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The first cause of action seeks to invalidate the first trust amendment on the basis of undue influence, lack of capacity, fraud and/or duress.

Probate Code section 86 adopts the definition of ‘undue influence’ as found Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.70. Undue influence means “excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.70(a).) The vulnerability of the victim, the influencer’s apparent authority, the actions or tactics used by the influencer, and the equity of the result are all considerations in determining whether a result was produced by undue influence. (Id., at subds. (a)(1)-(4).)

The California Supreme Court has described undue influence as, “pressure brought to bear directly on the testamentary act, sufficient to overcome the testator’s free will, amounting in effect to coercion destroying the testator’s free agency.” (Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1354, citing Rice v. Clark (2002) 28 Cal.4th 89, 96.) Here, Petitioner alleges

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR001045: IN THE MATTER OF: THE ROBERT AND KATHLEEN SLATER LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 General Probate Notice of Demurrer of Respondent Shawn Paul Quinn to Petitioner Shari Landa's Petition for Order Invalidating Amended to Trus in Department 126

Decedent and Ms. Slater were in a confidential relationship as Ms. Slater was Decedent’s caretaker and wife. (Petition, ¶ 32.) Petitioner further alleges that Decedent’s age, worsening medical condition, and dependence on care from Ms. Slater. (Id.) Petitioner also alleges active participation in procuring the trust amendment. (Id., at ¶ 33.) However, Petitioner alleges on information and belief that “[Ms. Slater] used her position of power and authority over [Decedent] as his caretaker and [Decedent’s] position of vulnerability to amend the trust. (Petition, ¶ 21.) Petitioner does not describe what “pressure [was] brought to bear directly on the testamentary act.” (Lintz v. Lintz, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1354.) The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on this basis.

“The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Here, the amended petition does not state facts sufficient to demonstrate a claim for fraud. Respondent alleges a misrepresentation, the alleged forged signature. (Petition, ¶ 36.) However, Petitioner does not allege any knowledge of the falsity of the misrepresentations, intent to defraud, or justifiable reliance. Thus, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the first cause of action.

Finally, Petitioner’s claim of lack of due execution states facts sufficient to support a cause of action. “A presumption of due execution normally attaches to a testamentary instrument administered in probate.” (Munn v. Briggs (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 578, 590.) Petitioner again cites to “information and belief” that the signature was fraudulently executed. While Exhibit B to the petition provides the date and signatures of the trust amendment, Article 3.3 expressly states the bypass trust may not be amended by the surviving settlor. Thus, sufficient facts are stated to allege a cause of action for lack of due execution. The demurrer on this basis is overruled.

For the aforementioned reasons, the demurrer is sustained in part with leave to amend. No later than July 22, 2026 shall Petitioner file their amended petition.

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