BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 156|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 156
Author: Beall (D), et al.
Amended: 6/19/13
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/23/13
AYES: Evans, Walters, Anderson, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
SENATE FLOOR : 37-0, 4/29/13
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Calderon, Cannella,
Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Evans, Fuller,
Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff,
Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Monning, Nielsen, Padilla,
Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland,
Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu, Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 6/27/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Conservatorships and guardianships: attorney's fees
SOURCE : California Senior Legislature
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a court to award specified
litigation costs incurred by a guardian or conservator in
defending the compensation in a petition, including attorney's
fees, as specified.
Assembly Amendments authorize the court to award specified
litigation costs incurred by the guardian or conservator in
CONTINUED
SB 156
Page
2
defending the compensation in the petition, including attorney's
fees only if the guardian or conservator first proves that
he/she made a good faith effort to informally resolve all
objections, that he/she acted in good faith in defending the
petition, and that it is in the best interest of the ward or
conservatee to award the costs.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Requires that a guardian or conservator be allowed payment for
reasonable expenses incurred in the exercise of the powers and
performance of his/her duties (including costs of surety bonds
furnished, reasonable attorney's fees, and other just and
reasonable compensation for services rendered to the
conservatee or ward) and for other reasonable expenses, as
specified.
2.Provides that, at any time after the filing of the inventory
and appraisal, but not before the expiration of 90 days from
the issuance of letters or any other period of time as the
court for good cause orders, the guardian or conservator of
the estate may petition the court for an order fixing and
allowing compensation to the guardian or conservator of the
estate or person for services rendered at that time or to the
guardian's or conservator's attorney for services rendered to
that time. (Prob. Code Sec. 2640 (a).)
3.Requires, upon the hearing, the court to make an order
allowing, (1) any compensation requested in the petition the
court determines is just and reasonable to the guardian or
conservator of the estate and/or person for services rendered,
and (2) any compensation requested in the petition the court
determines is reasonable to the guardian's or conservator's
attorney for services rendered. The compensation allowed to
the guardian or conservator of the person or estate, and to
the attorney, may, in the discretion of the court, include
compensation for services rendered before the date of the
order appointing the guardian or conservator. The
compensation allowed shall thereupon be charged to the estate.
(Prob. Code Sec. 2640 (c).)
4.Provides that the guardian or conservator shall not be
CONTINUED
SB 156
Page
3
compensated from the estate for any costs or fees that the
guardian or conservator incurred in unsuccessfully opposing a
petition, or other request or action, made by or on behalf of
the ward or conservatee, unless the court determines that the
opposition was made in good faith, based on the interests of
the ward or conservatee. (Prob. Code Sections. 2623 (b), 2640
(d).)
5.Prohibits conservators and guardians from receiving any
compensation for unsuccessfully defending their fee petitions,
unless the guardian or conservator proves to the satisfaction
of the court provided specified actions have been taken.
This bill:
1.Provides that a guardian or conservator may not be compensated
from the ward's or conservatee's estate for any costs or fees,
including attorney's fees, that the guardian or conservator
incurred in defending the compensation in the petition, which
compensation the court reduced or denied.
2.Provides, however, if the guardian or conservator proves to
the satisfaction of the court all of the following, then the
court has the discretion to grant or deny, in whole or in
part, an additional fee request:
A. The guardian or conservator made a reasonable and good
faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the objection to the compensation in the
petition;
B. The guardian or conservator acted in good faith and with
substantial justification in defending the petition, taking
into consideration the objections thereto, if any; and
C. It is in the best interest of the ward or conservatee to
make such an award.
Background
In California, if an adult is unable to manage his/her financial
matters, a conservator of the estate may be appointed by a court
to manage the adult's (conservatee) financial matters. If the
adult is unable to manage his/her medical and personal
CONTINUED
SB 156
Page
4
decisions, a conservator of the person may be appointed.
Similarly, a guardian of the estate or person may be appointed
for a minor child (ward).
A guardian or conservator is authorized to charge the
conservatee's or ward's estate for services rendered in
connection with managing the conservatee's or ward's financial
or personal matters. The guardian or conservator is required to
file a petition for fees for services rendered with the court.
If the fee petition is challenged (filed as an objection to the
fee petition), presumably by an individual acting on behalf of
the conservatee or ward, and the guardian or conservator does
not prevail on the fee petition, the guardian or conservator is
prohibited from receiving compensation from the estate for any
costs or fees that the guardian or conservator incurred in
litigating the fee petition, unless the court determines that
the guardian's or conservator's opposition to the fee petition
objection was made in good faith, based on the interests of the
ward or conservatee.
A recent Mercury News article exposed a problem with the
difficulty of conservatees and wards in challenging exorbitant
fee petitions. The article reported that "a six-month
investigation by this newspaper found a small group of Santa
Clara County's court-appointed personal and estate managers are
handing out costly and questionable bills - and charging even
more if they are challenged. The troubling trend is enriching
these private professionals - working as conservators and
trustees - and their attorneys, with eye-popping rates that
threaten to force their vulnerable clients onto government
assistance to survive." (de Sá, Santa Clara County's
court-appointed personal and estate managers are handing out
costly and questionable bills, Mercury News (June 30, 2012)
[as of Apr. 14, 2013].) Conservatees and wards,
under existing law, may be required to pay the litigation costs
of the conservator and guardian, but existing law does not
similarly allow a conservatee or ward to recover their
litigation costs, even if he/she is successful in challenging
the fee petition.
This bill alters the existing one-way fee shifting provision and
provides a two-way fee shifting provision to authorize an award
CONTINUED
SB 156
Page
5
of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing objector to a fee
petition.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/19/13)
California Senior Legislature (source)
California Public Defenders Association
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
conserved adults who are being overcharged by estate managers
face a dilemma when they go to court to contest questionable
costs: They must pay the conservator's legal fees - even if a
judge ultimately finds the conservators had filed unjustified or
exorbitant bills. Many times, this gap in the law has placed
California's elderly and disabled adults in the untenable
position of choosing to accept the overcharges solely because it
will cost more to challenge them in court, win or lose.
SB 156 provides judges with greater discretion to protect
estates from exorbitant billing and fees. The bill also
balances the scales by creating a "loser pays" scenario in which
both sides risk paying their opponent's legal fees if they lose.
SB 156 will act as a deterrent to any unfair padding of costs,
thereby reducing incidences of contested cases; and for the
conservatees or their families, who do file frivolous
objections, they may still be required to pay "fees-on-fees."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 6/27/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway,
Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell,
Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson,
Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,
Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Vacancy
CONTINUED
SB 156
Page
6
AL:ej 7/2/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED