BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1520|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1520
Author: Gatto (D)
Amended: 6/16/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/10/14
AYES: Jackson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 72-0, 5/1/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Guardians ad litem: animals
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a court to appoint a guardian ad
litem to represent the interests of an animal, who is the
subject of a pet trust, if the court determines that
representation of the animal's interest otherwise would be
inadequate. This bill also authorizes the court to award
payment of the reasonable expenses of the guardian ad litem
either out of the trust or another source.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Authorizes the court, on its own motion or on request of a
personal representative, guardian, conservator, trustee, or
other interested person, to appoint a guardian ad litem at any
stage of a proceeding to represent the interest of any of the
following persons, if the court determines that representation
CONTINUED
AB 1520
Page
2
of the interest otherwise would be inadequate:
A minor;
An incapacitated person;
An unborn person;
An unascertained person;
A person whose identity or address is unknown; and
A designated class of persons who are not ascertained or
are not in being.
1.Provides for the creation of a trust for the care of an animal
as follows:
A trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet
animal is valid and terminates when no living animal is
covered by the trust;
The governing instrument shall be liberally construed in
order to bring the transfer within the normal rules for
trusts, to presume against the honorary nature of the
disposition, and to carry out the general intent of the
trustor;
Extrinsic evidence is admissible in determining the
intent of the trustor;
The trust principal or income shall not be converted to
the trustee's use or for any purpose other than for the
benefit of the covered animal;
Upon termination of the trust, the trustee shall
transfer the unexpended trust property, as specified;
The intended purpose of the trust principal or income
may be enforced by a person designated by the trust or, if
none is designated, by a person appointed by the court upon
application;
Any person interested in the welfare of the animal or
any nonprofit charitable organization that has as its
principal activity the care of animals may petition the
court regarding the trust;
If the trust instrument does not name a trustee or no
CONTINUED
AB 1520
Page
3
trustee or successor trustee is willing or able to serve,
the court is required to appoint a trustee to carry out the
intended use of the trust property;
A court may order the transfer of the trust property to
a court-appointed trustee, if it is required to ensure that
the intended use is carried out and if a successor trustee
is not designated in the trust instrument or if no
designated successor trustee agrees to serve or is able to
serve;
A court may make all other orders necessary to carry out
the trustor's intent;
Trust accountings must be provided to the beneficiaries
who would be entitled to distribution if the animal were
then deceased and to any nonprofit charitable corporation
that has as its principal activity the care of animals and
that has requested these accountings in writing. However,
if the value of the assets in the trust does not exceed
$40,000, no filing, report, registration, periodic
accounting, separate maintenance of funds, appointment, or
fee is required by reason of the existence of the fiduciary
relationship of the trustee, unless ordered by the court or
required by the trust instrument;
Any beneficiary, any person designated by the trust
instrument or the court to enforce the trust, or any
nonprofit charitable corporation that has as its principal
activity the care of animals may, upon reasonable request,
inspect the animal, the premises where the animal is
maintained, or the books and records of the trust; and
"Animal" is defined to mean a domestic or pet animal for
the benefit of which a trust has been established.
This bill:
1.Authorizes the court, on its own motion or on request of a
trustee or other person interested in the welfare of the
animal or an animal care nonprofit organization, to appoint a
guardian ad litem to represent the interest of an animal for
which a trust has been established, if the court determines
that representation of the interest otherwise would be
CONTINUED
AB 1520
Page
4
inadequate.
2.Authorizes the court, on its own motion or on the request of
the trustee or any person or organization authorized to
petition the court regarding the trust, to appoint a guardian
ad litem to represent the interest of the animal if the court
determines that representation otherwise would be inadequate.
3.Prohibits a public guardian from being appointed as a guardian
ad litem in a pet trust.
4.Provides that the reasonable expenses of the guardian ad
litem, including compensation and attorney's fees, shall be
determined by the court and paid as the court orders, either
out of the trust or from another source as the court orders.
Background
According to the 2013-2014 American Pet Products Association's
National Pet Owners Survey, 68% of United States households own
a pet, which equates to approximately 82.5 million homes.
Increasingly, pet owners are seeking to ensure that their pets
are cared for after the owner's death or disability. Thus,
informal arrangements with family or friends have been made for
the care of such animals. Some have ventured to include pets in
their wills, while others have created "pet trusts" that set
aside money for the care of the pets in the event of the owner's
death or disability.
For example, famed real estate and hotel mogul Leona Helmsley
left a trust of $12 million for the care of her pet dog,
Trouble. Another lesser known pet owner from Maryland willed
some $400,000 plus a house to the three stray dogs that he
adopted. In those circumstances, the trustee or executor is
expected to pay a caretaker to ensure that the pets are housed,
fed, and maintained as provided in the trust or will.
Under existing law, any person interested in the welfare of a
pet, or any nonprofit charitable organization principally
involved in the care of animals, may petition the court
regarding the pet trust or the trustee's powers or
administration of the trust.
CONTINUED
AB 1520
Page
5
Prior Legislation
SB 685 (Yee, Chapter 168, Statutes of 2008) repealed prior law
on trusts for domesticated or pet animals and enacted more
detailed provisions for the creation and enforcement of pet
trusts.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/17/14)
The Humane Society of the United States
State Humane Association of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/17/14)
The Animal Council
California State Association of Public Administrators
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes, "Current law does
not allow for the appointment of a person to represent the best
interest of an animal that is the subject of a pet trust. This
bill would allow for the appointment of such a person [if] the
court sees fit."
The Humane Society of the United States, in support, asserts
that "[p]ets are routinely considered part of [a] person's
family. The Humane Society of the United States encourages
responsible pet owners to ensure that their beloved pet will
continue to receive the care they provided if something
unexpected were to happen. AB 1520 provides a valuable and
needed safety net for pets and other animals if that message is
not heard or, despite an individual's best intentions, the plans
fall short."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Animal Council (TAC) argues
that, "there is no proper legal basis for appointment of
guardians ad litem for animals within the California Probate
Code?. Since Section 15212 already provides procedures for
oversight of the trust and the animal, it is difficult to
understand the need for establishing unprecedented legal rights
for any class of animals within the Probate Code." TAC further
argues that the author's assertion that "the status of animals
CONTINUED
AB 1520
Page
6
is inherently more than property as evidenced by animals being
able to be beneficiaries of trusts pursuant to legislation" is
misleading and incorrect in a legal context because animals were
not intended by the Legislature when enacting the pet trust
statute to make animals beneficiaries of a pet trust. On this
point, TAC argues "[t]here is a legal difference between being a
'beneficiary' in a legal sense and that of animals as 'property'
for which a trust is established for its care and maintenance.
Inanimate property can also be maintained by a trustor's
designation and assets but does not become a 'beneficiary'
itself. Under existing law animals are property within a
framework that allows their legal owners or other provided by
statute to protect their interests within the judicial system.
Animals for which a trust has been established may be
'beneficiaries' in vernacular usage, but the statutory
enforceability of the trust does not confer the legal status of
'beneficiary;' on the animals. To enact law that suggests this
invites confusion, expense and unnecessarily time consuming use
of the judicial system."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 72-0, 5/1/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Beth Gaines,
Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove,
Hagman, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer,
Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brown, Donnelly, Frazier, Hall, Mansoor,
Patterson, Salas, Vacancy
AL:nl 6/17/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 1520
Page
7
CONTINUED