Matter of The Verdin Revocable Family Trust

Case Number

25PR00521

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 01/05/2026 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition: Determine Claim to Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

Any Respondents desirous to object must file a written objection before the next 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 PETITION IS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.

Petitioner filed a Petition to Determine Claim to Property pursuant to Probate Code section 850 on October 6, 2025.   That petition revealed two facts on its face that warrant denial of the petition for lack of standing and lack of necessity.  The petition was recommended for denial unless supplement showed cause as to why the petition should not be denied.  No supplement was filed.

Petitioner, instead, filed an “Amended Petition for Order Confirming Assets to Revocable Trust.”  In that amendment, petitioner changed the request articulated in the original petition to the following requests:

a) The Decedent's brother Philip B. Verdin has passed away. The Decedent's brother Philip B. Verdin created a trust named The Philip B. Verdin Revocable Trust dated October 1,2013 (the "Philip Verdin Trust").

b) The Philip Verdin Trust designated the Decedent to inherit real property and personal property. The Petitioner is seeking an order from this Court that any inheritance left to the Decedent from the Philip B. Verdin Trust and/or Philip B. Verdin is an asset of the Trust.

(Amn. Pet. at p. 2, lns 6-12.)

The amended petition not only failed to resolve any of the issues with the original petition that were outlined extensively in the probate notes, but it also created new issues by putting forth a vague request for relief that is unsupported by any evidence, and also lacks Proof of Service on any party entitled to notice. (Please note: the waivers of notice to the beneficiaries does not remove or satisfy the requirement that a Proof of Service on Form DE-115 be filed.)

As such, the following analysis is given as to why the petition should be denied:

Petitioner lacks standing

The amended petition stills fails to show how anyone else other than the deceased settlor and petitioner claim title to the subject property.  There is a lack of standing because no other persons than the deceased settlor and surviving settlor claim title to the now vague description of property that is presumably a distribution from the Philip B. Verdin trust. This means the court does not have jurisdiction to make the requested orders, because no property is claimed “by another” under section 850, because there is no title dispute.

Probate Code section 850 only grants this Court authority to determine title to property when title to that property is claimed to be held by someone other than the rightful title holder who is either a guardian, conservator, minor, personal representative, or trustee.  (Prob. Code, § 850. subds. (a)(1-3).)  Since the only title holder in this case is the trustee, the court lacks standing to make an order related to title that would have any effect against another.

There appears to be adequate legal remedy

This petition is not necessary because Petitioner is the settlor of the subject trust, and appears to hold title to the subject property, at least jointly with decedent, without a court order.  The trust instrument does not make the trust irrevocable upon the death of the first settlor, thus the trust may still be amended by the surviving settlor, and the surviving settlor has full authority to transfer the subject property into the trust without a court order.  “In other words, the touchstone for equity is the lack of an adequate legal remedy, and equity will not entertain jurisdiction if there is an adequate, complete, plain, and speedy remedy at law.” (30A Corp. Juris Sec., Equity § 18.)  Probate court is a court of equity, thus cannot act until Petitioner presents an adequate wrong for which there is no remedy at law.

Put more simply, there is no legitimate legal obstacle prohibiting Petitioner, as surviving settlor, from transferring title of any property identified in the petition to the trust without a court order.

Inadequate recorded title

Petitioner alleges title is held by the trust, but does not submit evidence showing how title is currently held.  Even worse, the amended petition now describes a nebulous property distribution from a completely different trust, does not provide a copy of that trust, and inexplicably requests this court to confirm a distribution from that other trust is now the property of this trust. How is this court supposed to legally support such an order? No explanation or authority is given; nor does any exist under the law.

Since “a person may not transfer an estate or interest in property unless that person is the owner of the estate or interest in question or has the legal authority to act on that owner's behalf” (Restatement (Fourth) of Property § 1.1 (2024), the Court must have evidence of how title is held:

The nemo dat principle is typically expressed in the full Latin phrase “nemo dat quod non habet,” which roughly translates to “one can only transfer what one owns” or, in the negative, “one cannot transfer property that one does not own.” It is sometimes called the “derivation principle” because the transferee's interest derives from the transferor's.

(Id., at cmnt. a. See also (Miller & Starr (2024) 3 Cal. Real Est. § 8:58 (4th ed.) § 8:58 [“It is axiomatic that a deed cannot convey more than is owned by the grantor. If a deed purports to convey property that is not owned by the grantor, it is ineffective to convey the property, and it is a “wild deed” that can have no effect on title of the person who holds real title to the property.”]; and Romero v. Shih (2024) 15 Cal.5th 680, 689 [citing same in Miller & Starr].)

Defective Service

The original Proof of Service in this case was attached to the petition like a civil pleading, and shows service of Notice of Hearing was not on the mandated Judicial Council form DE-115, thus service did not contain the requisite information for a Probate Code section 850 Petition to Determine a Claim to Property.

After probate notes were posted to that effect, a DE-115 was filed that shows service of the Notice of Petition on that form was somehow made on October 6, 2025.  This is suspect, because the Petition was originally filed on that date, and contained an attached, defective proof of service. This makes it highly unlikely service of the proper Notice of Hearing on form DE-115 occurred.

The waiver attached to the amended petition is no better.  It merely alleges that all beneficiaries were served with form DE-115.

Service of Petitions pursuant to section 850 of the Probate Code is governed by section 851, which references CCP section 413.10:

At least 30 days prior to the day of the hearing, the petitioner shall cause notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition to be served in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on all of the following persons where applicable:

(1) The personal representative, conservator, guardian, or trustee as appropriate. 

(2) Each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property.

(Prob. Code, § 851(a).)  According to that chapter of the CCP, service of the petition must be on the person (CCP, §§413.10; 415.10) the same as a civil summons, with exceptions for mailing and publication as that law provides when the serving party proves the petition “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served…” (CCP, §415.20(b).)

Further, section 851 requires Notices of Petitions pursuant to Probate Code section 850 “shall contain all of the following”:

(1) A description of the subject property sufficient to provide adequate notice to any party who may have an interest in the property. For real property, the notice shall state the street address or, if none, a description of the property’s location and assessor’s parcel number.

(2) If the petition seeks relief pursuant to Section 859, a description of the relief sought sufficient to provide adequate notice to the party against whom that relief is requested.

(3) A statement advising any person interested in the property that he or she may file a response to the petition.

(Prob. Code, § 851(c) [emphasis added].)  To ensure this information is in the notice, the Judicial Council created form DE-115 to be used for all petitions pursuant to section 850.

Thus, the proof of service must be submitted using Form DE-115, which became mandatory on January 1, 2020.  Waivers of such service should be submitted to Form DE-115 in a minimal effort to show the statutory notice requirements outlined above were fulfilled.

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