Estate of MaryLou Olsen Boyle

Case Number

25PR00489

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 12/09/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

After supplement filed on December 4, 2025, the following is noted for the Court:

Proof of Re-Publication.  The Court order re-publication on November 18, 2025.  The supplement admits proof of re-publication will be difficult to obtain timely before the hearing.  If proof of re-publication is filed before the hearing, the petition has no procedural hurdle to being granted, but as outlined below, likely is not the most efficient or cost-effective way to move forward in this case.

For reference, the original Proof of Publication was defective, because it did not include a notification that admission of a will to Probate is being sought.  It appears this is a result of that request not being indicated at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Petition to Administer the Estate.

Probate Code 850 Petition.  The supplement filed on December 4, 2025, is not persuasive as to why this estate should not be distributed subject solely to the trust.  It is CLEAR that Decedent’s intent written intent was to distribute all property according to the trust instruments Decedent executed, because the trust instrument contained language showing that Decedent considered all property she owned as part of the trust estate. 

Specifically, the original iteration of the trust listed all her investment accounts on a schedule A that she specifically identified as trust property, and the Fourt Amendment to the trust listed on Schedule A “All savings accounts, certificates of deposit, money market funds, securities and other investments which I own, including my regular checking account.”  (Supp. filed Nov. 14, 2025, at exh. A, dg. p. 10, #2.)  This statement, coupled with the specific devise of “all of my estate to the MARY LOU OLSEN BOYLE TRUST” that is contained in Decedent’s Last Will and Testament, give this Court ample evidence to conclude that it was Decedent’s intent to administer ALL of her estate according to the trust, not probate.

Thus, the argument set forth by the attorney for petitioner is not persuasive, and only benefits the attorney by entitlement to a larger fee set by statute, than one that is commonly charged for trust simple Petitions to Determine Claim to Property pursuant to Probate Code section 850. 

Therefore, it is recommended the Court DENY this petition for probate, or in the alternative, grant the petition (if proof of re-publication is filed) with an order expressly limiting the statutory fee to a reasonable amount that would be charged to bring a Petition to Determine Claim to Property pursuant to Probate Code section 850. 

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 160 543 3416

Passcode: 5053334