Matter of The DJH Revocable Trust

Case Number

25PR00504

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 11/17/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition: Determine Claim to Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

The petition is recommended for denial.  There is no evidence before the Court that the subject property was held in trust, and the trust is governed by Florida Law, wherein no precedent was cited thereto giving this court authority to make a finding that the subject property was held in trust.

David and Joanna Humes executed the subject trust in Florida on November 13, 2023.  David Humes died on May 16, 2024, and Joanna Humes died on April 13, 2025.  Petitioner is the successor trustee of the trust, and asks this court to make a finding that title to real property located at 309 North E Steet, Lompoc, CA is held in the name of the subject trust, despite the admission that the last recorded deed shows title to the subject property held firmly outside of the trust.  That deed was recorded in 2008.

The petition should be denied for two reasons. First, there is no general assignment clause in the subject trust, that assigns all the settlors’ property to the trust.  Second, the only clause addressing the assignment of property to the trust expressly limits the property held in the subject trust to that listed as a Schedule A, which Petitioner admits cannot be produced.

The only language that can remotely be held to assign any property to the trust is the preamble, which reads as follows:

We, David Daniel Humes and Joanna Ines Humes, as Grantors, declare that we hold and administer as Trustees the property described in Schedule A and any other property (the "trust estate") which may be added in the future or devised by either of us or any other person to the Trustees, or made the Trustee beneficiary thereof, all of which are to be held by the Trustees under the terms of this trust as provided below.

(Pet. at exh. A, dgt. P. 10 [emphasis added].)  In no realm of reason can this language be held to grant title to any property that is not specifically titled in the name of the trust, or listed on the identified Schedule A…which petitioner admits cannot be found.

This is problematic enough under California law, because Probate Code section 850, nor any of the cases related to that section (Estate of Heggstad (1993), 16 Cal. App. 4th 943; Ukkestad v.RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156), contain any authority to override the clear and overarching requirement of a writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.

But making matters worse, the subject trust has clear language expressing a choice of law in favor of Florida Law:

9.3 Governing Law. This Agreement and the trust established hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida.

(Pet. at exh. A, dgt. P. 27.)

Unfortunately, even if the Court could ignore Evidence Code section 662’s presumption of title in the name of David Hume and apply the caselaw related to section 850 petitions, precedent such as Heggstad and Ukkestad do not travel well outside the great state of California. While the Nevada Supreme Court saw the intelligently reasoned outcome in both cases as something that state should follow (Matter of Living Trust of David Francis Davies III (2022) 138 Nev. 886, 888), most other states, including Florida, have yet to be so wise.

Therefore, the Court should deny the petition.

Appearances:

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

Meeting ID: 161 797 5412

Passcode: 8749009