Goebner v. Super. Ct.
Case Number: A171241
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2025-04-30
Case Brief – Goebner v. Super. Ct.
Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-02
Case Number: A171241
Disposition: Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the respondent court to vacate its order overruling Goebner’s demurrer as untimely and to consider the demurrer on the merits; Goebner is entitled to recover his costs in the writ proceeding.
Holding
The court held that, under Probate Code § 1043, an interested person may file a demurrer to a probate petition “at or before the hearing,” and therefore Goebner’s demurrer filed two days before the scheduled hearing was timely; the trial court’s reliance on Code of Civil Procedure § 430.40 was misplaced.
Narrative
A petition to amend a trust can trigger a fierce battle over both substantive rights and procedural rules. In Goebner v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal resolved a clash between the Probate Code’s specific timing scheme for objections and the general civil‑procedure deadline for demurrers, a decision that will shape how probate practitioners handle pleading objections in the future.
Procedural backdrop
On October 19, 2023, Thomas R. McDonald filed a petition in San Mateo County Superior Court challenging amendments to the Judith E. Stratos 2000 Trust. The original trust named McDonald and his sister as beneficiaries; later amendments—purportedly executed shortly before Stratos’s death—removed them and installed William Goebner as successor trustee. McDonald alleged undue influence, fraud, and elder abuse, invoking Probate Code §§ 17200 and 850 to seek a declaration of invalidity, an accounting, and removal of the trustee.
The same day McDonald served Goebner with notice of a March 14, 2024 hearing, Goebner filed a demurrer, citing Probate Code § 1000 and the Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10 et seq., seeking dismissal of the petition. The trial court, applying Code of Civil Procedure § 430.40, which mandates a demurrer be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint, overruled the demurrer as untimely. Goebner appealed via a petition for a writ of mandate, arguing that the Probate Code’s own timing rule—§ 1043(a), allowing an “interested person … to make a response or objection in writing at or before the hearing”—governed the filing deadline.
Issues presented
- Does Probate Code § 1043, a special rule governing objections in probate proceedings, supersede the general civil‑procedure deadline of § 430.40 for demurrers?
- If § 1043 applies, does a demurrer qualify as a “response or objection” within its meaning?
Court’s analysis
The appellate court began by noting that writ review is ordinarily unavailable for demurrer rulings, which are usually appealed from a final judgment. However, the court invoked its discretion where “conflicting trial‑court interpretations of the law require a resolution,” emphasizing the lack of controlling authority on the interplay between §§ 1043 and 430.40.
Section 1000 of the Probate Code establishes a default rule: civil‑procedure practice applies “except to the extent that the Probate Code provides applicable rules.” The court read § 1043 as such an applicable rule, expressly prescribing the timing for “responses or objections” in probate hearings. Because the Probate Code supplies a specific deadline, the default civil‑procedure rule is displaced.
The court then addressed whether a demurrer falls within the ambit of “objection.” It turned to the Code of Civil Procedure, which defines a demurrer as a “ground for objection to a complaint” (§ 430.30(a)). By harmonizing the statutes, the court concluded that a demurrer is a permissible form of objection under § 1043. The appellate panel rejected McDonald’s reliance on § 8251, which governs objections in will‑contests, noting that § 1040 limits the reach of § 8251 to those specific proceedings and does not extend to general trust‑amendment petitions.
The court also dismissed McDonald’s policy arguments that allowing a demurrer at any time before the hearing would be “absurd.” It observed that the Probate Code already provides a safeguard: the court may continue a hearing “in the interest of justice” (§ 1045) if a demurrer is presented too close to the hearing date, preserving fairness without nullifying the statutory deadline.
Finally, the court addressed the meet‑and‑confer requirement of § 430.41. It held that the requirement applies to probate proceedings only “as nearly as is consistently possible” to civil practice, meaning parties must confer at least five days before the hearing—consistent with the timing scheme of § 1043.
Disposition
Applying its construction, the court held that Goebner’s demurrer, filed two days before the hearing, complied with Probate Code § 1043 and was therefore timely. The trial court’s order overruling the demurrer as untimely was vacated, and a peremptory writ of mandate was issued directing the lower court to consider the demurrer on its merits. The appellate court expressly declined to opine on the substantive merits of the demurrer.
Implications for probate practice
Goebner resolves a split among California trial courts regarding demurrer timing in probate matters. Practitioners must now treat § 1043 as the controlling deadline for any pleading objection—including demurrers—filed in probate petitions, unless a specific Probate Code provision (e.g., §§ 8250‑8251 for will contests) dictates otherwise. The decision also underscores the importance of aligning meet‑and‑confer efforts with the hearing date rather than the civil‑procedure filing deadline.
The ruling may prompt lower courts to revisit past demurrer rulings that were dismissed under § 430.40, potentially reopening procedural challenges in ongoing trust disputes. Moreover, the decision clarifies that while summary‑judgment motions remain governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the filing of a demurrer itself is anchored in probate‑specific timing, a nuance that will require careful docket management.
Unresolved questions linger, particularly regarding the interaction of § 1043 with other procedural mechanisms such as motions for summary judgment or motions to strike, which the court left untouched. Future appellate guidance may be needed to delineate the boundary between “objections” covered by § 1043 and other pre‑trial motions that retain their civil‑procedure timelines.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code §§ 1040, 1043, 1045, 1000 – Hearings and orders; timing for responses/objections; default rule incorporating civil practice.
- Probate Code §§ 8250‑8251 – Specific timing for objections in will contests (distinguished).
- Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10, 430.30, 430.40, 430.41 – General demurrer filing deadline; definition of demurrer as objection; meet‑and‑confer requirement.
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a) – Costs in writ proceedings.
- Key cases: Merrill v. Finberg (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1443 (default rule of § 1000); Tan v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 130 (harmonizing statutes); Young v. McCoy (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1078 (avoid superfluous statutory provisions); Estate of Neilson (1962) 57 Cal.2d 733 (probate practice mirrors civil practice where possible).