In re: The Helen M. Harris Revocable Living Trust

25PR001806: IN RE: THE HELEN M. HARRIS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Re-instate Co-Trustee in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO REINSTATE CO-TRUSTEE; DECLARATION OF DARCY R. ALLEN; REQUEST FOR TRUSTEE COMPENSATION; REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTING; OBJECTION TO ATTORNEY FEES; REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE BUYOUT

Filed: 5/15/2026

Re: The Helen M. Harris Revocable Living Trust

MOVING PARTY: Darcy R. Allen Self-Represented

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

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.

25PR001806: IN RE: THE HELEN M. HARRIS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Re-instate Co-Trustee 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 former trustee Darcy R. Allen’s (“Movant”) motion to reinstate co-trustee is DENIED as follows.

By way of background, on May 19, 2026, Amos Roger Henry III’s petition was continued to June 17, 2026 to be heard with this motion. Per this Court’s minute order dated 5/19/2026, Mr. Henry was required to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of his request for attorney’s fees, by June 3, 2026, which is not in the Court’s records. Additionally, Mr. Henry was required to file an opposition no later than June 3, 2026. There is no opposition or response in the Court’s records.

Although an unopposed motion is generally construed as the non-moving party’s concession on the merits, 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 this motion or notice of hearing appears in the Court’s records indicating Movant served her motion on Mr. Henry or his counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005. The proof of service, filed 5/15/2026, indicates only that a “Declaration of Darcy R. Allen” and a “Summary of Preservation Expenses (Exhibit F)” were served on Mr. Henry and counsel. Movant was required, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, to file a proof of service of the moving papers no later than five court days prior to the hearing. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Id.)

Further, while Movant filed a document titled, “Motion to Reinstate Co-Trustee; Declaration of Darcy R. Allen; Request for Trustee Compensation; Request for Accounting; Objection to Attorney Fees; Request for Equitable Buyout,” the document consists only of Movant’s declaration and a prayer for relief. The document does not include a motion, memorandum of points and authorities, or legal authority or basis for such requests for relief. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a) requires that “the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) The motion itself; and (3) A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR001806: IN RE: THE HELEN M. HARRIS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Re-instate Co-Trustee in Department 129

memorandum in support of the motion ” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a)(1)-(3) (emphasis added.].) By only providing a declaration and request for relief, Movant has not provided the requisite moving papers or legal authority. The requests for relief, unsupported by any legal authority, are rejected. (See Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)

Finally, even assuming the aforementioned defects were not present, Movant offers no authority to demonstrate how a motion is the proper procedural vehicle to appoint a former co-trustee (Prob. Code, § 17200(b)(10).) “[Probate Code] Section 1000 provides, in relevant part, ‘Except to the extent that [the Probate Code] provides applicable rules, the rules of practice applicable to civil actions . . . apply to, and constitute the rules of practice’ in proceedings under the Probate Code. (§ 1000, subd. (a).)” (Goebner v.

Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th1105, 1110 [emphasis added].) “This is a rule of default—that is, the Probate Code ‘adopts the civil practice rules only where special rules are not prescribed.’” (Id., citing Merrill v. Finberg (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) The Probate Code expressly prescribes the procedure to appoint a cotrustee. Thus, a motion to reinstate trustee is procedurally improper.

The motion is denied.

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