Matter of Henry and Venice Dettamanti Family Trust
Matter of Henry and Venice Dettamanti Family Trust
Case Number
23PR00280
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 12/17/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Final Distribution; Petition for Order to Appoint Replacement; Petition for Order removing Elizabeth Watkins as Successor Trustee and Appointing Replacement
Tentative Ruling
Aaron Feldman
Katherine R. Dettamanti Attorney for Mario Dettamanti
Tiffany M. Carrari, attorney for Linda Kopcrak and The Carrari Family Trust
Angelina Dettamanti
Mark A. Herrick, limited scope attorney for Angelina Dettamanti
RULINGS
For the reasons set out below the Court, on its own motion [sua sponte] continues the Final Accounting, the Petition to Appoint an Independent Replacement, and the Petition to Remove Elizabeth Watkins as Successor Trustee to 2/04/2026 at 9:30 a.m. in SB Dept 3. No appearance is required on 12/17/2025.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Distribution Plan as presented by Successor Trustee, Elizabeth Watkins. Prior to approving any distribution plan, the final accounting must be approved. The final accounting submitted by Ms. Watkins includes the following discrepancies: “For Trust A, the property on hand at the beginning of the period covered by the account does not match the value of the property on hand at the end of the prior account. Bank of America account ending in 3700 was included in the first accounting and is not included in this accounting. Mechanics Bank account ending in 4535 is included in the 2nd account and not included in the 1st account.
An Amended Accounting is required to address this discrepancy.
Additionally, Prob. Code § 17203 requires a 30-day notice period. No proof of service was filed in this case.
Background
On 6/18/25 the case was last on the Court’s calendar; the matter was continued sua sponte to 12/17/25 at 10am; status reports due one week in advance.
Proposed Distribution Plan for Final Distribution
Filed 12/10/25 by Aaron Feldman, Attorneys for Successor Trustee Elizabeth A. Watkins; 99 pages; read and considered.
Status Report
Filed 12/12/25 by Katherine R. Dettamanti; 14 pages; read and considered: Mario submits this status report in support of the Trustee’s plan for distribution as follows:
1. In paragraph 9 of the Proposed Distribution Plan filed by the Trustee on December 10, 2025, the Trustee proposed her first plan for distribution, to wit:
a. To Mario Dettamanti: $383,817.95
b. To Carrari Trust: $346,817.95
c. To Elizabeth Watkins (Trustee): $2,135.91.
2. Under this first plan, the Trustee properly accounted for surcharges that include:
a. her repayment of $97,500 of trust funds that she admitted to improperly loaning to herself to pay restitution in a criminal case in Ventura County involving the business she owns with her husband (see p. 10 of her Response to Objections filed May 10, 2024); and,
b. rent for living rent-free in Trust property as previously ordered by the Court on May 22, 2024.
The Court will recall its conclusions made in that Order.
The Trustee’s first plan for distribution is the only plan that includes the previously Ordered rent surcharge. Res judicata precludes the Court from considering the Trustee’s renewed plea that she not be surcharged due to the final ruling on the merits of that issue in May 2024. The Trustee is foreclosed from relitigating that issue or proposing the alternate plans for distribution that do not reflect the previously Ordered surcharge because the Trustee never brought a motion for reconsideration or filed an appeal, and the time to do so has long since expired.
3. In regard to the non-cash assets (i.e., the Warehouse shares and the Well Lot), Mario requests that as part of his distribution he receives the Warehouse shares valued at $42,500. This will reduce the cash distributed to him to $341,317.95.
4. Mario declines distribution of the Well Lot to him because he no longer lives in the area and is therefore unable to manage the property or put in the time and effort to make the potentially income producing property valuable. Nor is he willing or able to pay for someone else to do it for him or pay for the carrying costs associated with the property.
5. In a perfect world, the Trustee would have made some effort to sell the property in the four years that she has been Trustee. But unfortunately, she did not. No “what if’s” will change the fact that the property must somehow be disposed of now. Rather than try to sell the property now, to prevent further delay and continued litigation of this case, Mario suggests that if the Carrari Trust does not wish to receive the Well Lot as part of their distribution, the property be assigned to the Trustee in lieu of further compensation (see ¶ 7 below). The Trustee has requested that she receive the Well Lot (see ¶ 11 of the Proposed Distribution Plan). Distributing the Well Lot to the Trustee would fully resolve this matter now, rather than the Court making another order for preliminary distributions for the remaining assets and continuing this case until such time as the Trustee has sold the Well Lot and those proceeds can finally be distributed.
6. A fatal flaw in the Trustee’s plans for distribution is that none of the plans account for the cash distributions that she has received to date. Notably, the Trustee’s Proposed Distribution Plan provides that the total preliminary distributions that were made to her “pursuant to Court Order” (see ¶ 2 of the Proposed Distribution Plan) amount to $1,425,000—the value of the 4465 La Tierra Lane property that was distributed to the Trustee pursuant to the Court’s Order of June 4, 2024. The Trustee cleverly omitted how much cash she has distributed to herself because she did so outside of any Court Orders.2 The Trustee has received total cash distributions of $116,573.25 according to the first accounting approved by the Court on May 22, 2024 ($72,311.25), the final accounting through February 2025 ($43,098), and the bank statements through November 2025 attached as exhibits to the Trustee’s Proposed Distribution Plan ($1,164). The relevant portions of these accountings and bank statements is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Note that the total cash distributions of $116,573.25 properly excludes the $97,500 the Trustee took to pay her criminal restitution, as that amount is already addressed as a surcharge under the Trustee’s first distribution plan discussed above (see ¶ 2). As a result of the Trustee’s receipt of the La Tierra Lane property ($1,425,000) and cash distributed to her ($116,573.25), the Trustee has received $1,541,573.25. Thus, the Trustee has received $114,437.34 more than her 50% share when taking into consideration the loan and rent surcharges to her share. She is not entitled to the $2,135.91 that she proposes as her remaining cash distribution due under her first distribution plan.
7. Rather than require the Trustee to repay the excess cash distributions she has made to herself, Mario proposes the excess distributions be in lieu of compensation. And, as discussed above, Mario proposes that in lieu of any further compensation to the Trustee, the Well Lot be distributed to her. That will resolve this case finally and fully now, without the need to further litigate whether the Trustee should receive any compensation or what the appropriate amount may be.
8. Therefore, Mario agrees to and respectfully requests that the Court approve the Trustee’s first plan for distribution with the necessary changes as discussed above, to wit:
a. To Mario Dettamanti: $342,385.90
Warehouse shares ($42,500)
b. To Carrari Trust: $347,885.90
c. To Elizabeth Watkins (Trustee): Well Lot ($12,500)
The Court’s Conclusions
The Court has read everything submitted and the matter needs to be continued.