DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PB-0033396·shasta·Probate·Trust Administration
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

IN RE: EDWARD H. YOUNG AND JUDY J. YOUNG 2010 FAMILY TRUST

Petition for Order Confirming Successor Co-Trustees and Confirming Trust Assets

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
44
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 6, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherRobin Clark
OtherTeron Reynolds
OtherDamon Young
OtherTrudy Valdez
OtherTad Young
OtherKathy Ray
OtherPearl Hillburn
OtherPhillip Valdez
OtherBrenda Young
OtherLance Ray

Ruling

name of the Trust. A pour-over will indicates an intent that any property not held in Trust at time of death be devised to the Trust after death. A pour-over will does not support a present intent to hold the subject property in the name of the Trust during the decedent’s lifetime. No other evidence was provided to show the decedent had a present intent to hold the subject property in Trust while he was living. The Petition is DENIED without prejudice. The clerk is instructed to close the file. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

IN RE: EDWARD H. YOUNG AND JUDY J. YOUNG 2010 FAMILY TRUST CASE NUMBER: 26PB-0033396 This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition for Order Confirming Successor Co-Trustees and Confirming Trust Assets. The matter has not been properly noticed. There is no proof of service for the following beneficiaries of the Trust: Robin Clark, Teron Reynolds, the children of Robin Clark, the children of Teron Reynolds, the children of Damon Young, the children of Trudy Valdez, the children of Tad Young, the children of Kathy Ray, the children of Pearl Hillburn, Phillip Valdez, Brenda Young, and Lance Ray.

The matter is continued to Monday, July 6, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 for further proceedings regarding the Petition for Order Confirming Successor Co-Trustees and Confirming Trust Assets. Petitioners are required to file and serve a new Notice of Hearing on Petition to Determine Claim to Property, along with a copy of the Petition, on all parties entitled to notice. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

17

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share