BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 940|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 940
Author: Jackson (D)
Amended: 4/29/14
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/1/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/28/14
AYES: De León, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Padilla
SUBJECT : California Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act
SOURCE : California Law Revision Commission
DIGEST : This bill establishes the California Conservatorship
Jurisdiction Act (CCJA), effective January 1, 2016, which
provides jurisdictional and procedural guidance on
conservatorship proceedings between California and other states.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, the
Guardianship-Conservatorship Law generally establishes the
standards and procedures for the appointment and termination of
an appointment for a guardian or conservator of a person, an
estate, or both. The law specifically requires, before the
appointment of either a guardian or conservator is effective,
the prospective guardian or conservator to take an oath to
perform these duties according to the law.
CONTINUED
SB 940
Page
2
This bill:
1. Establishes specific provisions to assist state courts
determine appropriate jurisdiction for proposed conservatees.
The jurisdiction is determined through a three-tier
hierarchy: home state, significant-connection state, and
neither home state nor significant-connection state.
2. States that when the court is neither the home state nor a
significant-connection state, the court may exercise
jurisdiction in certain limited circumstances. In
determining whether the reviewing court or another state is a
more appropriate forum, the reviewing court must consider
specified criteria, including but not limited to the location
of the proposed conservatee's family and other persons
required to be notified of the conservatorship proceeding;
the length of time the proposed conservatee at any time was
physically present in the state and the duration of any
absence; the location of the proposed conservatee's property;
and the extent to which the proposed conservatee has ties to
the state such as voting registration, state or local tax
return filing, vehicle registration, driver's license, social
relationship, and receipt of services.
3. Clarifies that the CCJA does not apply to proceedings
involving minors, persons involuntarily committed to a mental
health facility or involuntary mental health care, and
provides express limitations on its application to a
conservatee with dementia.
4. Provides new procedures and considerations for a California
court to determine whether or not to transfer an established
conservatorship to another state or to accept the transfer
from another state. The CCJA only permits a transfer between
California and another "state," as defined, that has enacted
the transfer procedure of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and
Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA).
5. Creates a conservatorship transfer process that is an
integrated procedure, requiring issuance of four court
orders. As the bill requires action in both the transferring
state and the accepting state, the transfer process cannot be
completed unless both states have enacted the UAGPPJA
transfer procedure.
CONTINUED
SB 940
Page
3
6. States that a conservatorship cannot be transferred to
California without the assent of a California court (through
issuance of a provisional order accepting the transfer and a
final order accepting the transfer), and provides a
California court the ability to deny a conservatorship that
could be another state's attempt to "dump" a conservatorship.
7. Precludes the transfer of a conservatorship into California
if the conservator in the transferring state is ineligible,
under the law of the transferring state, to serve in
California.
8. Does not change the existing responsibilities of
California's public conservators. The conservatees whose
conservatorships could be transferred to California under the
CCJA are the same ones who are entitled to establish a new
conservatorship in California under existing law.
9. States that after a conservatee is transferred to
California, that person is considered a California citizen,
with a California conservatorship.
10.Clarifies that transfers of conservatorships do not apply to
an adult with a developmental disability, or to any
proceeding in which a person is appointed to provide personal
care or property administration for an adult with a
developmental disability.
11.Authorizes courts to charge a fee of $30 for the
registration of a conservatorship established pursuant to the
CCJA. Fees collected are to be distributed to the Trial
Court Trust Fund, as specified.
12.Requires that at least 15 days before registering a
conservatorship in this state, the conservator must provide
notice of intent to register to specified parties.
13.Provides that the CCJA jurisdictional provisions do not
apply to a proposed conservatee who is a member of an Indian
tribe with jurisdiction, and provides for various definitions
regarding federally recognized Indian tribes.
14.Prohibits the court from dismissing a petition if the tribal
CONTINUED
SB 940
Page
4
court expressly declines to exercise its jurisdiction with
regard to the proposed conservatee.
Background
In 2011, pursuant to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 49 (Evans)
Res. Chapter 98/2009, the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC) began studying the UAGPPJA for potential adoption by
California. In its December 2013 report of recommendations to
the Legislature, the CLRC stated:
In California, a conservatorship is a proceeding in which a
court appoints someone to assist an adult with personal
care or financial transactions because that adult lacks the
ability to handle those matters without assistance. These
types of court proceedings are becoming common across the
United States, because the population of the country is
aging. At the same time, the population is highly mobile.
Individuals frequently move from one state to another, own
property or conduct transactions in more than one state,
and spend time in multiple locations. Due to these
developments, a number of problems relating to
conservatorships are occurring: jurisdictional disputes;
issues relating to transferring a conservatorship from one
state to another; requests for recognition of a
conservatorship that was established in another state.
The UAGPPJA was approved by the Uniform Law Commission in
2007 to address these problems. It provides a set of rules
for resolving jurisdictional disputes, a streamlined
process for transfer of a conservatorship, and a
registration procedure to facilitate recognition of a
conservatorship that was established in another state. The
goal of the act is to alleviate the burdens of handling a
conservatorship situation that involves more than one
state. A large majority of states have enacted UAGPPJA,
including all three of California's neighbors (Arizona,
Oregon, and Nevada). California has not yet done so,
however, because the uniform act uses different terminology
than California and requires some adjustments to be
workable in California. The Law Revision Commission
studied UAGPPJA to determine whether and, if so, in what
form, the act should be enacted in California. After
conducting extensive research and analysis, and receiving
CONTINUED
SB 940
Page
5
input from a broad range of stakeholders, the Commission
recommends that UAGPPJA be enacted in California, with a
number of modifications to protect California policies and
ensure that the act works smoothly in this state.
Prior Legislation
ACR 49 (Evans, Resolution Chapter 98, Statutes of 2009) required
the CLRC to study the UAGPPJA for potential adoption by
California.
AB 1363 (Jones, Chapter 493, Statutes of 2006) established the
Omnibus Conservatorship and Guardianship Reform Act of 2006,
which significantly restructured the courts' review of
conservatorships and imposed new duties on court investigators.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potentially significant ongoing costs (General Fund*) for
court investigator duties related to conservatorships mandated
by the CCJA and currently unfunded under existing processes
imposed by the Omnibus Conservator and Guardianship Reform Act
of 2006.
One-time minor costs of less than $50,000 (General Fund*) to
the Judicial Council to create forms and develop rules of
court to implement the CCJA.
Likely significant future cost savings (General Fund*) to the
courts through operational efficiencies created by
streamlining the conservator transfer process, facilitating
enforcement of out-of-state conservatorship orders through
registration, and reducing potential jurisdictional disputes
through the establishment of clear guidelines.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/29/14)
California Law Revision Commission (source)
AARP
CONTINUED
SB 940
Page
6
Alzheimer's Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author,
"Conservatorships are becoming common across the United States
because the proportion of elderly adults in the population is
increasing. The country's population is also highly mobile.
People often move from one state to another, own property or
conduct transactions in more than one state, and spend time in
multiple locations. Due to these developments, several problems
relating to conservatorships are occurring: (1) jurisdictional
disputes; (2) issues relating to transferring a conservatorship
from one state to another; and (3) requests for recognition of a
conservatorship that was established in another state.
"The Uniform Law Commission has proposed the Uniform Adult
Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act
(UAGPPJA) for enactment in all 50 states in order to resolve
jurisdictional issues between conservatorship courts of multiple
states and facilitate cooperation between these courts. The
UAGPPJA ? has been enacted in some form in 37 states, Puerto
Rico, and the District of Columbia.
"SB 940 would implement the final version of the UAGPPJA
recommended by the CLRC, which would be known as the California
Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act [(CCJA)]. By implementing that
recommendation, SB 940 would help conservatees, their families,
the court system, and others affected by multi-jurisdictional
conservatorship issues by providing clear guidance for
conservatorship jurisdictional and transfer issues and
streamlining the multi-state conservatorship process for
conservators, conservatees, and courts."
AL:nl 4/29/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED