MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
7. 25PR0206 THE DARLENE ANDERSEN TRUST MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE
Before the Court are two separate motions: 1) Petition for Instructions and Removal of Trustee; and 2) Motions to Compel Discovery Responses. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE On July 31, 2025, Jeffrey Andresen (“Trustee”), as Trustee of the Darlene Andresen Trust (“Trust”), filed a Petition with the Court requesting the following relief: 1. Termination of Teresa Andresen’s (“Daughter” or “Respondent”) right to occupy the Residence; 2. Restore possession of the Residence to Trustee, including a deadline for occupants to vacant, and (if necessary) a writ of possession against Daughter and her boyfriend; 3.
Daughter’s share of the trust estate be surcharged for all expenses paid by the Trust since February 21, 2025, through Daughter’s occupancy of the Residence that relate to the Residence; 4. Instruction on how to administer trust estate should Daughter’s right to occupy continue; and 5. Other and further relief as the Court deems proper. The settlor is deceased, and gifted Daughter the conditional opportunity to occupy the Trust’s home in El Dorado Hills. The Trust terminates her right to occupy upon, “the inability of [Daughter] to pay all expenses related to the Residence.”
The gift appears in the Trust’s restatement, dated January 13, 2015 (“2015 Restatement”). A copy of the 2015 Restatement, which is the operable trust document, is attached to Trustee’s Petition as Exhibit C. Upon termination, Daughter is to vacate, and the trustee is to sell the home and distribute the net sale proceeds to the remainder beneficiaries (1/3 Daughter, 1/3 to settlor’s son (the Trustee), and 1/3 to the children of a predeceased son). Trustee contends that Daughter has not paid expenses or made necessary repairs (e.g., removal of a dead tree next to the home) and consequently, Trustee has had to use a line of credit since the settlor’s February 2025 death to make the payments (e.g., property taxes, insurance, mortgage).
Trustee argues that Daughter’s inability to pay during the entire postdeath administration of this Trust—which currently spans six months and counting— sufficiently triggers the Trust’s requirement that she (and her partner who also resides there) vacate so that the home can be sold and the proceeds distributed to the several beneficiaries of the Trust.
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
Trustee seeks an order confirming that Daughter’s right to occupy has terminated because the Trust lacks sufficient funds to pay its required expenses, and Daughter has failed to maintain the Residence. Trustee requests a deadline for the occupants of the Residence to vacate, and (if needed) a writ of possession. The Court has the express authority under
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This relief, which may include a writ of possession, may be made against any person (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) who are in possession of trust-owned property. (Probate Code § 850(a)(3)(B)). There are no due process violations when compared to an unlawful detainer action because a petition under Section 850 likewise requires personal service, and it actually affords more notice to the occupants (a minimum 30 day service requirement). (Probate Code § 851). Through surcharge, Trustee seeks reimbursement from Daughter for the expenses paid by the Trust to maintain the Residence and to bring this Petition.
Trustee has paid those expenses using the line of credit ($6,128.63 through July 28, 2025). Trustee argues that these expenses, and any future expenses relating to the Residence that are incurred during Daughter’s occupancy, should be charged to Daughter’s share of the Trust. The Trust grants Trustee the express authority to hire attorneys and pay them reasonable compensation. (2015 Restatement, Article VII(K)). The Trust also expressly grants Trustee the power to commence litigation related to the Trust. (2015 Restatement, Article VII (R)).
Here, Trustee hired an estate litigation attorney and has paid that attorney to attempt resolution and prosecute this petition. Trustee argues this litigation expense should be charged against Daughter’s share of the Trust. At the hearing of September 29, 2025, the Court continued the matter to allow an opportunity for Objections to the Petition to be filed by November 3, 2025. On October 30, 2025, Respondent/Daughter filed an ex parte application requesting that the Court appoint her an attorney, which was denied.
On November 6, 2025, Respondent/Daughter filed an ex parte application requesting that the Court order a copy of the Will and Trust be provided to her, which was denied. The Trust document and subsequent amendments are attached to the Trustee’s Petition, filed on July 31, 2025. On November 21, 2025, Respondent/Daughter filed an Objection to the Trustee’s July 31, 2025, Petition, as well as a Petition for removal of the Trustee. There is no service list attached to the proof of service on file with the Court for either the Objection or the Respondent/Daughter’s Petition.
In addition to Trustee and Respondent/Daughter, there are two additional beneficiaries of the Trust who are entitled to notice.
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
On November 24, 2025, the Court ordered property tax, insurance, and utilities related to the home be handled by Respondent/Daughter. The hearing was continued to December 29, 2025. On December 23, 2025, the Trustee filed a response to the Petition and a hearing was held on December 29, 2025, at which the parties requested a continuance. At the hearing on March 3, 2026, the Court confirmed prior court orders and directed Respondent/Daughter to pay items previously ordered. The hearing was continued to June 29, 2026, which was thereafter continued to July 6 2026.
On May 28, 2026, Respondent/Daughter filed First Supplement to Petition for Instructions and for Removal of Trustee, which requests the following: 1. Instructions for Trustee to administer the Trust according to the terms of the California Probate Code, including preparation and submission to beneficiaries of a proper account, inventory, appraisal, and proposed distribution of the Trust and its assets with proper notice and approval; 2. Instructions for Trustee to prepare a summary and breakdown of a) what the proceeds of the home loan that he obtained have been used for; and b) what property-related payments he as Trustee made; 3.
Removal of Trustee as Successor Trustee and surcharge of Trustee for his acts as complained of herein; and 4. Set an evidentiary hearing as to the issue of the home equity loan taken out by Trustee. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES On November 24, 2025, Trustee served via mail Trustee’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents to Teresa Andresen (“Teresa” or “Responding Party”). The deadline to provide responses was December 29, 2025.
No response was received by this date, nor was an extension requested. On January 12, 2026, Responding Party’s attorney agreed to provide a response without objections. Unverified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of Documents were received on February 3, 2026. Unverified responses to the Special Interrogatories were produced on February 23, 2026. Verification of the responses were provided on March 3, 2026. On March 5, 2026, Responding Party filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Order of Relief from Waivers of Objections; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Declaration of Nicholas D.
Yonano, Esq. in Support Thereof. Counsel for Responding Party seeks relief on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that Responding Party has since submitted code compliant responses. Responding Party’s counsel asserts that the deadline
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
was missed as the deadline was “during the holidays” and he was focused on the merits of the action.” On April 7, 2026, Trustee’s Opposition to Teresa Andersen’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections and the Declaration of Jarom B. Phipps in Support of Trustee’s Opposition to Teresa Andresen’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections were filed by Trustee. On April 8, 2026, the following motions were filed by Trustee: 1. Trustee’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; 2.
Separate Statement in Support of Trustee’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; 3. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Trustee’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; 4. Declaration of Jarom B. Phipps in Support of Trustee’s Motions; 5. Trustee’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; 6.
Separate Statement in Support of Trustee’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; 7. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Trustee’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; 8. Declaration of Jarom B. Phipps in Support of Trustee’s Motions; 9. Trustee’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; 10.
Separate Statement in Support of Trustee’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; 11. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Trustee’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Teresa Andersen to Trustee’s First Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; and 12. Declaration of Jarom B. Phipps in Support of Trustee’s Motions. A hearing was set for May 18, 2026, and was continued to July 6, 2026, upon agreement of the Parties.
To date, no response or additional pleadings have been received by the Court.
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
FORM INTERROGATORIES Trustee asserts that Responding Party’s responses to Form Interrogatories No. 2.3, 15.1, 17.1, 50.2, were incomplete and/or evasive under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010. Form Rog. No. 2.3: Responding Party affirmatively responded and provided the state of her driver’s license but failed to provide additional requested information. The request is ambiguous as to the term “incident.” Trustee’s request is denied. Responding Party is ordered to provide Trustee with her driver’s license number, type, date of issuance, and restrictions within 10 days of the Court’s order.
Form Rog. No. 15.1: Responding Party provides a single answer without specifying the material allegation or defense it relates to and advises further facts are contained within her verified objection. Such response is not code compliant. Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 requires responses to interrogatories to be complete and straightforward. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response. Form Rog. No. 17.1: Trustee alleges Responding Party did not provide answers for her denied allegations as to Request for Admission Nos. 10 and 23.
RFA No. 10: Responding Party’s response to 17.1 includes several general factual statements wherein the answers to multiple demands are lumped into a single answer. It is unclear from a review of the answers which facts relate to RFA No.
10. It is possible Responding Party’s response at 10:28 and 11:1-6 relates to RFA No. 10; however, it is ambiguous as to the context of the answer. Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 requires responses to interrogatories to be complete and straightforward. Such ambiguity is not code compliant. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response. RFA No. 23: Responding Party fails to provide a response. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response. Form Rog. 50.2: Although Responding Party asserts there was no “agreement” alleged in the pleadings, she does provide a response that she did not breach any agreement.
Trustee’s request is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS As to the Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Trustee argues that the following documents were not produced and no privilege log was provided by Responding Party. RFP No. 1: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements. Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log.
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
RFP No. 2: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements. Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log. RFP No. 3: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents would be produced which do not invade Responding Party’s right to privacy and which are relevant to the action or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements.
The Court finds Responding Party waived her ability to include objections by failing to meet the deadline to provide responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300. The Court further finds Trustee’s interest in the requested documents outweighs Responding Party’s privacy interests as they directly relate to the Trust’s terms. Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log. RFP No. 5: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements.
Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log. RFP No. 6: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements. Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log. RFP No. 7: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements.
Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log. RFP No. 8: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements. Responding Party is ordered to produce the responsive documents or privilege log. RFP No. 12: Responding Party responded that the responsive documents would be produced which do not invade Responding Party’s right to privacy and which are relevant to the action or a privilege log would be produced but failed to provide any documents in violation of the statutory requirements.
The Court finds Responding Party waived her ability to include objections by failing to meet the deadline to provide responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300; however, that waiver does not automatically overcome Responding Party’s constitutional right to privacy. Medical records are among the categories of information afforded the highest degree of privacy protection. Although Responding Party has made assertions related to her disability and health issues, the Court is unpersuaded that Trustee’s interest in Responding Party’s medical records outweighs Responding Party’s right to privacy.
The request is not narrowly tailored and likely contains information not relevant to this matter. Trustee’s request is denied. //
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES Trustee asserts the following answers were not code compliant as they were either incomplete or evasive or completely unresponsive as only objections were provided. As Responding Party failed to provide timely responses, Trustee asserts she waived her right to object pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Special Rog. No. 3: Responding Party’s answer is incomplete and evasive, as she has not provided all dates responsive to the question. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response.
Special Rog. No. 8: Responding Party only provides objections. The Court agrees that Responding Party waived her ability to include objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response. Special Rog. No. 9: Responding Party only provides objections. The Court agrees that Responding Party waived her ability to include objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response.
Special Rog. No. 10: Responding Party only provides objections. The Court agrees that Responding Party waived her ability to include objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response. Special Rog. No. 11: Responding Party only provides objections. The Court agrees that Responding Party waived her ability to include objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response.
Special Rog. No. 12: Responding Party only provides objections. The Court agrees that Responding Party waived her ability to include objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response. Special Rog. No. 13: Responding Party only provides objections. The Court agrees that Responding Party waived her ability to include objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. Responding Party is ordered to provide a code compliant response.
SANCTIONS Trustee seeks $14,930 in sanctions for bringing forth the related discovery motions. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310 and 2030.300 provide: “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response...unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 defines “misuse of the discovery process” to include “making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery”, “making an evasive response to discovery”, “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel . . . discovery.” Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose a monetary sanction against parties engaged in misuse of the discovery process, to pay the reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.
Trustee’s attorney, Mr. Jarom B. Phipps, provided a declaration signed under penalty of perjury that provides the billing rates for himself and his associate attorney, Ms. Courtney Black, as well as a breakdown of the number of hours worked, and the tasks performed. Mr. Phipps’ estimation includes anticipated work for time spent reviewing opposing motions, drafting reply briefs, and attending the hearing. The Court finds that evasive and non-responsive answers to Trustee’s discovery requests comes within the definition of “misuse of the discovery process” and awards attorneys’ fees and costs to Trustee according to proof of the costs of bringing these Motions to Compel Further Responses.
TENTATIVE RULING #8: PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER IS ORDERED TO TIMELY PAY ALL PROPERTY-RELATED EXPENSES FOR THE RESIDENCE, INCLUDING MORTGAGE, PROPERTY TAX, UTILITIES, INSURANCE, MAINTENANCE, AND NECESSARY REPAIRS. IF ANY BALANCES ARE OUTSTANDING, RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER IS ORDERED TO PAY THE BALANCES IN FULL WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE COURT’S ORDER AND MAINTAIN CURRENT PAYMENTS MONTHLY. IF RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER FAILS TO TIMELY PAY ALL PROPERTY-RELATED EXPENSES MONTHLY AND/OR PAY OFF ANY OUTSTANDING BALANCES WITHIN 10 DAYS, THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ORDER RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER TO VACATE THE PROPERTY.
RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENTS OF THE HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AT THIS TIME. RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER’S REQUESTS ARE GRANTED AS FOR TRUSTEE TO ADMINISTER A PROPER ACCOUNTING, INVENTORY, APPRAISAL AND PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST AND FOR TRUSTEE TO PREPARE A SUMMARY AND BREAKDOWN OF A) WHAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE HOME LOAN HE OBTAINED WERE USED FOR; AND B) WHAT PROPERTY-RELATED PAYMENTS HE AS TRUSTEE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE COURT’S ORDER. THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 17, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.
IN DEPARTMENT NINE. THE PARTIES ARE INSTRUCTED TO FILE A STATUS REPORT WITH THE COURT 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
July 6, 2026 Dept. 9 Probate Tentative Rulings
HEARING INFORMING THE COURT OF THE STATUS OF RESPONDENT/DAUGHTER’S PROPERTY- RELATED EXPENSES AND THE STATUS OF THE ACCOUNTING AND BREAKDOWN OF THE HELOC. DISCOVERY MOTIONS TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION IS GRANTED AS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES NOS. 15.1, 17.1 (RFA 10), AND 17.1 (RFA 23); REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 8; SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, AND 13. RESPONDING PARTY IS ORDERED TO PRODUCE ALL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS, DOCUMENTS OR PRIVILEGE LOG WITHIN 10 DAYS. TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS DENIED AS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES NO. 2.3 AND 50.2; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
12. RESPONDING PARTY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF RELIEF FROM WAIVERS OF OBJECTIONS IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT IT CONFLICTS WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS. THE COURT DOES NOT FIND RESPONDING PARTY SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE DISCOVERY DEMANDS NOR WAS HER FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND A RESULT OF MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ARE AWARDED TO TRUSTEE FOR THE COSTS OF BRINGING THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, ACCORDING TO PROOF. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M.
ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M.
ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
20