Tentative Ruling: Matter of The James A Jeffers Living Trust
Case Number
25PR00508
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/02/2026 - 08:30
Nature of Proceedings
CMC re: Petition for Internal Affairs
Tentative Ruling
Probate Notes:
Personal Appearances are required.
The initial pleading in this case was filed on September 25, 2025. A pleading responding to the September 25th petition titled “Answer” was filed by Jay Jeffers on November 14, 2025. It appears from the allegations in that response that Mr. Jeffers objects to the relief requested in the September 25th petition, placing this matter at issue and requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)
Any Respondents desirous to object to the Petition, must file a written objection before the hearing. The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver
The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:
Allegations on the face of the pleading and supplement reveal that an accounting was never requested. The supplement filed on December 15, 2025, clarifies that Petitioners are relying upon Probate Code section 16061 to require an accounting from the Respondent. However, the only evidence given in support of these allegations does not contain any language that could logically be construed to demand anything but copies of trust documents. Thus, no accounting was formally requested from the trustee, meaning an accounting now ordered by the court would be premature.
Elder Abuse and Undue Influence not properly pleaded. The supplement filed on December 15, 2025, clarifies that Section 21380 was cited in the caption for the proposition that the trust at issue was obtained using undue influence. From other allegations in the Petition and Supplement, it seems Petitioner seeks to void the trust under the doctrine of undue influence, purportedly via the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA). However, the Petition does not plainly state such, creating confusion, and does not contain a single labeled cause of action in conformance to Pleading format requirements in CRC, Rule 3 or 7. The court should order the Petition amended to conform to those pleading requirements so that causes of action are plainly outlined, and the rules and elements of each rule are plainly pleaded.