BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 940
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
SB 940 (Jackson) - As Amended: June 4, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended
SENATE VOTE : 35-0
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA CONSERVATORSHIP JURISDICTION ACT
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATORSHIP JURISDICTION
ACT BE ENACTED TO ADDRESS MULTI-STATE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
AFFECTING CONSERVATORSHIPS?
SYNOPSIS
In 2007, the Uniform Law Commission proposed the Uniform Adult
Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act
(UAGPPJA) to govern interstate transfers of guardianship case,
which has now been enacted in some form in 38 states. In 2011,
the Legislature directed the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC) to study the UAGPPJA for potential adoption by
California. The CLRC modified the UAGPPJA to fit California law
and the result is the proposed California Conservatorship
Jurisdiction Act (CCJA). This bill establishes, effective
January 1, 2016, the CCJA, which provides jurisdictional and
procedural rules for conservatorship proceedings between
California and other states, including Native American tribes.
This bill is sponsored the CLRC and supported by AARP and the
Alzheimer's Association. It is supported by the Trusts &
Estates Section of the State Bar if amended to more tightly
control registration of out-of-state conservatorships in
California. The CLRC has already amended the CCJA several
times, at the request of the Trust & Estates Section, to provide
notice of the registration and any court proceedings to
interested parties and argues that any further changes would
unduly burden conservators, conservatees and the courts.
SUMMARY : Provides, effective January 1, 2016, provisions for
interstate jurisdiction, transfer, and recognition of
conservatorships under the California Conservatorship
Jurisdiction Act (CCJA). Specifically, this bill , among other
SB 940
Page 2
things:
1)Provides general provisions for interstate jurisdiction,
transfer, and recognition of conservatorships under the CCJA.
Defines states broadly to include United States territories,
as well as federally recognized tribes. Provides that a
California court may treat a foreign country as if it were a
state for the purpose of applying the general, jurisdictional,
and transfer provisions of the CCJA.
2)Provides that the CCJA does not apply to a proceeding
involving: a minor; a person subjected to involuntary mental
health treatment, such as a person conserved under the
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act; and an adult with a developmental
disability. Also provides specified, express limitations on
the application of the CCJA to a conservatee with dementia.
3)Provides that a California court has jurisdiction to appoint a
conservator for a proposed conservatee if:
a) California is the proposed conservatee's home state, as
defined;
b) On the date the petition is filed, California is a
significant-connection state, as defined, and the
respondent does not have a home state;
c) On the date the petition is filed, California is a
significant-connection state and a court of the proposed
conservatee's home state has expressly declined to exercise
jurisdiction because California is a more appropriate
forum;
d) On the date the petition is filed, California is a
significant-connection state, the proposed conservatee has
a home state, and a conservatorship petition is not pending
in a court of the home state or another
significant-connection state; and before the court makes
the appointment, no conservatorship petition is filed in
the proposed conservatee's home state, no objection to the
court's jurisdiction is filed by a person required to be
notified of the proceeding, and the California court
concludes that it is an appropriate forum under the
specified factors; or
e) California does not otherwise have jurisdiction, as
specified; the proposed conservatee's home state and all
significant-connection states have expressly declined to
exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more
SB 940
Page 3
appropriate forum; and jurisdiction in California is
consistent with the United States and California
constitutions.
4)Provides that a California court that otherwise lacks
jurisdiction has special jurisdiction to do any of the
following:
a) Appoint a temporary conservator of the person in an
emergency, as defined, for a proposed conservatee who is
physically present in California, as specified;
b) Appoint a conservator of the estate with respect to
property located in California; and
c) Appoint a conservator for a proposed conservatee for
whom a provisional order to transfer a proceeding from
another state has been issued.
5)Provides that a California court with jurisdiction to appoint
a conservator may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it
determines at any time that a court of another state is a more
appropriate forum.
6)Authorizes a California court to communicate with a court in
another state concerning a proceeding arising under the CCJA
and authorizes the court to allow parties to participate in
that communication.
7)After issuance of an order provisionally granting a petition
to transfer a conservatee from another state to California,
requires a court investigator to promptly commence an
investigation, as specified, and prepare a report. Requires a
court, in a proceeding to transfer a conservatorship, to
appoint legal counsel to represent the interests of a
conservatee who is unable to retain legal counsel and requests
appointment of counsel.
8)Provides that the first time that the need for a
conservatorship is challenged by any interested person or
raised on the court's own motion after a transfer, the court
shall presume that there is no need for a conservatorship.
Provides that the presumption is rebuttable and may be
overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
9)Provides that if a conservatorship is transferred from
California to another state pursuant to the CCJA, the foreign
SB 940
Page 4
conservator may remove the conservatee's personal property
from California without seeking a petition to have the
conservatee's property removed to the other state.
10)If a petition for the appointment of a conservator of the
person in an emergency is brought in California and California
was not the home state of the proposed conservatee on the date
the petition was filed, requires the court to dismiss the
proceeding at the request of the court of the home state, if
any.
11)If a petition for the appointment of a conservator is brought
in California and California was not the home state of the
proposed conservatee on the date the petition was filed, in
addition to complying with the notice requirements of this
state, requires the petitioner to give notice of the petition
or of a hearing on the petition to those persons who would be
entitled to notice if a proceeding were brought in the home
state of the proposed conservatee.
12)Establishes provisions for the transfer of a California
conservatorship to another state. Authorizes a conservator
appointed in California to petition the court to transfer the
conservatorship to another state. Requires the petitioner to
give notice of a hearing on the transfer petition to the
persons that would be entitled to notice of a conservatorship
hearing in California.
13)Requires the court to issue an order provisionally granting
the petition to transfer a conservatorship and to direct the
conservator to petition for acceptance of the conservatorship
in the other state, if the court is satisfied that the
conservatorship will be accepted by the court in the other
state and the court makes certain specific findings. To
confirm transfer of a conservatorship to California, requires
the conservator to petition the California court to accept the
conservatorship.
14)Provides that a petition for the appointment of a temporary
conservator may be filed while a transfer petition is pending.
15)Requires the petitioner to give notice of a hearing on a
transfer petition to those persons that would be entitled to
notice if the petition were for the appointment of a
SB 940
Page 5
conservator in both the transferring state and California.
Provides that any person entitled to that notice may object to
the transfer petition.
16)Requires the court to hold a hearing on a transfer petition
and issue an order provisionally granting the petition unless
the court determines that: (1) transfer of the proceeding
would be contrary to the interests of the conservatee; (2)
under the law of the transferring state, the conservator is
ineligible for appointment in California; (3) under California
law, the conservator is ineligible for appointment in this
state, and the transfer petition does not identify a
replacement who is willing and eligible to serve in
California; or (4) the CCJA does not otherwise apply to the
conservatee.
17)If the court issues an order provisionally granting the
transfer petition, requires the investigator to promptly
commence an investigation, as specified. Requires the court,
not later than 60 days after issuance of an order
provisionally granting the petition, to determine whether the
conservatorship needs to be modified to conform to California
law.
18)Provides that the denial by a California court of a petition
to accept a conservatorship transferred from another state
does not affect the ability of the conservator to otherwise
seek appointment as conservator if the court has jurisdiction
to make an appointment other than by reason of the provisional
order of transfer.
19)Provides conservatorship registration requirements and
recognition of conservatorship orders from other states. When
the conservatee resides in California, prohibits a conservator
from exercising any powers pursuant to a CCJA registration.
Requires that the conservator must comply with California law.
Requires the conservator to provide notice of the
registration to (a) the court supervising the conservatorship;
and (b) every person entitled to notice of a petition for
appointment of a conservatorship in California and in the
state supervising the conservatorship, with specific notice
about how the conservator's actions may be challenged.
20)Provides that a conservatorship order of a court of a
California tribe can be registered regardless of whether the
SB 940
Page 6
conservatee resides in California, and the effect of a
registered conservatorship order of a court of a California
tribe is contingent on whether the conservatee resides in
California.
21)Authorizes courts to charge $30 for the registration of a
conservatorship established pursuant to the CCJA. Allows
travel and other necessary and reasonable expenses incurred
under the CCJA to be assessed against the parties according to
California law.
22)Requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2016,
to develop court rules and forms necessary for the
implementation of the CCJA.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows the court to appoint a conservator to act on behalf of
a person who is unable to adequately provide for his or her
personal needs (a conservator of the person) or incapable of
managing his or her property or other financial assets (a
conservator of the estate). Requires the court investigator
to personally interview the proposed conservatee prior to the
hearing and make specified determinations. (Probate Code
Section 1800 et seq. Unless otherwise stated, all further
references are to that code.)
2)Allows the court, upon showing of good cause, to appoint a
temporary conservator or guardian to serve pending the
appointment of a permanent conservator or guardian for a
limited period of time, with five days' notice, but such
notice may be waived by the court for good cause. Unless the
court orders otherwise, provides the temporary conservator or
guardian with only those powers and duties that are necessary
to provide for temporary care of the conservatee or ward and
to preserve and protect the property of the conservatee or
ward from loss or injury. (Section 2250 et seq.)
3)Requires the probate court to review conservatorships at a
noticed hearing six months after appointment of the
conservator and annually thereafter, as specified. (Section
1850 et seq.)
4)Requires a court to appoint a public defender or private
counsel to represent the interests of a conservatee, proposed
SB 940
Page 7
conservatee, or person alleged to lack legal capacity who is
unable to retain legal counsel and requests appointment of
counsel in specified proceedings. (Section 1471.)
5)Provides a conservator with powers and duties over a
nonresident conservatee while that conservatee is in
California, unless limited by court order. (Section 2107.)
6)Allows a conservator or comparable fiduciary of a nonresident
conservatee to petition the court to have property owned by
the nonresident conservatee removed to the state of the
conservatee's residence. (Section 3800.)
7)Provides that the effect of a judicial record of a sister
state is the same in California as in the state where it was
made, except that it can only be enforced in California by an
action or special proceeding, and the authority of a
conservator does not extend beyond the jurisdiction of the
sister state except to the extent expressly authorized by
statute. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1913.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : In California, if an adult is unable to manage his or
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 or her
medical and personal decisions, a conservator of the person may
be appointed. Similarly, a guardian of the estate or person may
be appointed for a minor child.
Conservatorships are becoming more common across the United
States as the number of elderly with diminished capacity
increases. Additionally, with our mobile society, people often
move from one state to another, own property or conduct
transactions in more than one state, or spend time in different
locations throughout the year. As a result of these
developments, conservatorship jurisdictional disputes between
states are increasing and raise issues relating to the transfer
of a conservatorship from one state to another and requests for
recognition in one state of a conservatorship established in
another state.
To address these issues, the Uniform Law Commission proposed, in
2007, the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings
SB 940
Page 8
Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) for enactment in all states. (In
most other states, conservatorships are called guardianships.)
To resolve jurisdictional issues between guardianship courts of
multiple states and to facilitate cooperation between these
courts, the UAGPPJA has now been enacted in some form in 38
states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
In 2011, pursuant to authorization from ACR 49 (Evans), Res.
Chap. 98, Stats. 2009, the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC) began studying the UAGPPJA for potential adoption in
California. The CLRC modified the UAGPPJA provisions to fit
California law, received public comment, and revised those
provisions to address the comments. (CLRC, Recommendation:
Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings
Jurisdiction Act (Dec. 2013).) This bill, effective January 1,
2016, implements the final version of the UAGPPJA recommended by
the CLRC and establishes the California Conservatorship
Jurisdiction Act.
In support of the bill, the author writes: "SB 940 would
implement the final version of the UAGPPJA recommended by the
CLRC, which would be known as the California Conservatorship
Jurisdiction Act. 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."
Need for Multi-Jurisdiction Conservatorship Rules : The Uniform
Law Commission developed the UAGPPJA in order to resolve
jurisdictional issues between conservatorship courts of multiple
states and facilitate cooperation between these courts. For
example, when families move states, conservatorships must now be
relitigated in the new state. The CLRC notes that such "such
relitigation is costly, time-consuming, and stressful, draining
resources of conservatees, their families, and the judicial
system. Those burdens can be particularly difficult for
families that are already stretched thin, struggling to provide
personal care and financial management for a needy relative,
while also handling their own affairs." (Id. at 129.)
The author argues that by enacting a modified version of the
UAGPPJA, SB 940 provides clear guidance for conservatorship
SB 940
Page 9
jurisdictional and transfer issues and streamlines the
multi-state conservatorship process for conservators,
conservatees, and courts. Additionally, by allowing state
courts to communicate with each other to identify pending
conservatorship petitions, this bill further protects elders and
disabled adults from multi-state elder abuse. The author
believes that the UAGPPJA, and the CCJA here in California,
should result in reduced conservatorship litigation in multiple
states, reduced costs for parties involved in the litigation,
less financial burden on the conservatorship estate, and less
court procedural and financial burdens.
Jurisdictional Rules for New Conservatorships Under the CCJA :
This bill establishes specific provisions to help state courts
determine appropriate jurisdiction for proposed conservatees.
Jurisdiction under the CCJA is determined through a three-tier
hierarchy: Home state first, then significant-connection state,
and finally neither home state nor significant-connection state.
The home state is determined by examining where the individual
was physically present for a six-month period preceding the
filing of the petition for appointment. The
significant-connection state is determined by where the proposed
conservatee has a significant connection aside from mere
physical presence and in which significant evidence concerning
the individual is available. More than one state can be a
significant-connection state. If the court is neither the home
state nor a significant-connection state, the court may still
exercise jurisdiction in certain limited circumstances. By
providing state courts with clear guidance on which state is the
appropriate forum for the proposed conservatorship, it is hoped
that courts will save time and money, and the parties will be
able to avoid costly, duplicative conservatorship proceedings in
multiple states.
Transfer of Conservatorships From One State to Another : This
bill provides new procedures and considerations for a California
court to determine whether or not to transfer an established
conservatorship to another state, defined broadly, or to accept
the transfer from another state. This bill, following the rules
in the UAGPPJA, creates a four-step conservatorship transfer
process: (1) A provisional order from the transferring state
granting the transfer; (2) a provisional order from the
accepting state agreeing to the transfer; (3) a final order from
the transferring state confirming the transfer; and (4) a final
order from the accepting state agreeing to the transfer. As the
SB 940
Page 10
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's transfer procedure, so
the CCJA only permits the transfer if the other state has
enacted the UAGPPJA's transfer procedure. By establishing
integral procedures between California and the other state, this
bill maintains the goals of the UAGPPJA to streamline and
simplify a conservatorship between states while maintaining
California's autonomy in determining whether to accept a
transferred conservatorship.
Notably, under the CCJA, 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). If a home state (other
than California) declined to act on the ground that California
would be a more appropriate forum, California would still not be
forced to accept jurisdiction of the conservatorship.
This bill also precludes the transfer of a conservatorship into
California if the conservator in the transferring state is
ineligible to serve in California. This provision is important
especially if the conservatee has a public conservator in the
other state and a transfer petition has been filed in a
California court. As the other state's public conservator would
be ineligible to act as the public conservator in California, it
is highly unlikely that a publicly conserved person in another
state could be transferred to California under the proposed law.
In this instance, the conservatorship process would have to be
newly initiated in California following the existing
conservatorship requirements and procedures.
Accordingly, the CCJA should not impose a new mandate on public
conservators because it would 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 would be
entitled to establish a new conservatorship in California under
existing law. To the extent that those people require the
assistance of a public conservator, California's public
conservators are already obligated to help them.
The CLRC notes that the proposed transfer process is meant to
help conservatees and their families, as well as the courts, by
providing a less burdensome means of moving a conservatorship
SB 940
Page 11
from one state to another. It is not meant to preclude use of
the existing conservatorship process, under which a
conservatorship may be established in California from scratch
when a conservatee relocates to California.
Registration and Recognition of Conservatorship Orders From
Other States : As part of the CCJA, this bill establishes a
registration procedure to allow a California court to recognize
a conservatorship order issued in another state. This process
allows a conservator to take action in another state, such as
obtaining medical care in a neighboring state or selling the
conservatee's property in another state. The CCJA facilitates
enforcement of a court appointment made in another state by
authorizing the court appointee to register the appointment in
California and exercise all of the power authorized in the order
of appointment, except what is prohibited by California law. To
further protect against an inappropriate registration of an
out-of-state conservatorship, the CCJA provides that a
conservator is specifically prohibited from registering a
conservatorship in California if the conservatee resides in the
state. In that case, the conservator would need to either
transfer the conservatorship from the other state or start fresh
with a new petition for appointment in California.
In order to address concerns raised by the Trusts & Estates
Section of the State Bar (Texcom) and the California Judges
Association (CJA) that the registration procedures should
provide interested parties with the ability to object to the
California registration, the CLRC modified the UAGPPJA by
expanding the registration notice requirements, which, as
recently amended, requires notice of the registration to (a) the
court supervising the conservatorship; and (b) every person
entitled to notice of a petition for appointment of a
conservatorship in California and in the state supervising the
conservatorship. The notice now must include information on the
conservator's rights and duties, as well as how to challenge the
conservator's actions.
The CLRC notes that if someone receiving the notice has concerns
about what the conservator might do in California, that person
can either (1) challenge the conservator's proposed action (not
the conservatorship registration, but the specific action that
the conservator is proposing to take) directly in a California
court, or (2) challenge the conservatorship registration in the
out-of-state court supervising the conservatorship, which should
SB 940
Page 12
be more familiar with the parties and the relevant circumstances
than a California court. (Id. at 213.) However, that person
could not contest the registration itself. CLRC believes this
limitation is appropriate because the California court would
have a hard time judging the merits of a registration challenge
without any context or specific knowledge of the case.
While appreciating the added notice requirement, Texcom, in
support if amended, continues to assert that an amendment is
needed to allow an interested person to directly challenge the
California registration and proposes an amendment to allow an
interested party to object to the proposed registration. Texcom
is concerned that since California affords higher protections
for the civil and due process rights of conservatees, "a
conservator may instead attempt to use registration of another
court's order as an 'end run' around California's stricter laws
for someone who currently resides in or intends to move to this
state. In that instance, a petition to transfer the
conservatorship using the procedure under UAGPPJA Article 3
should be required."
The CLRC counters that permitting a person to challenge the
conservatorship registration itself in a California court would
present an opportunity for unwarranted obstruction by an
uncooperative family member or other person entitled to notice.
Responding to such a challenge would be burdensome on the
conservator, the court system, and others involved in the
conservatorship situation. The better alternative, explains the
CLRC, is to allow the registration, but provide the concerned
individual with notice and allow that person to challenge
specific actions taken by the conservator in a California court.
The bill, as now amended, does just that.
During the CLRC's public review process, Texcom and CJA also
raised concern about the need to place a time limit on
conservatorship registrations. Texcom requested - and continues
to request - an amendment to terminate these registrations after
120 days, or when the conservatee becomes a resident of
California, whichever is earlier, unless the court for good
cause extends the time. The CLRC continues to reject this
proposal, arguing:
The time limit would add complexity to the registration
process and potentially increase the likelihood of
SB 940
Page 13
ambiguities and disputes, such as disputes over whether a
registration was timely renewed and whether an act occurred
while a registration was effective or only after a
registration expired. Title companies and other parties
relying on registration documents might be leery of having
to closely monitor for the expiration of a time limit.
Registration for a period longer than 120 days might
often be necessary, such as when an out-of-state
conservator must repeatedly deal with a creditor or debtor
located in California. Under the Texcom proposal, a
120-day time limit could only be extended with court
approval. The requirement of seeking court approval would
be burdensome on conservators, conservatees, and the court
system.
A conservatorship registration is already rendered
ineffective if the conservatee becomes a California
resident. There is no need to render the registration
doubly ineffective by imposing a time limit.
Although Texcom warns that a conservatorship
registration might be used "as a long term substitute for
complying with California's conservatorship laws," that
concern is misplaced and is not a valid justification for
imposing a time limit. Under the CCJA registration
process, the conservator of a registered conservatorship
cannot do anything that is prohibited under the law of the
state of registration - so the conservator must comply with
California law.
(See CLRC, Second Supplement to Memorandum 2013-14 Uniform Adult
Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act
(Comments on Tentative Recommendation) (Oct. 7, 2013), at p.
13.) The purpose of enacting the CCJA is to streamline
multi-state conservatorship processes, and, particularly with
the registration process, minimize the burden on California
courts. As such, incorporating Texcom's proposed amendments,
argues the CLRC, could inhibit the court's ability to expedite
the registration and may complicate the conservator's ability to
take appropriate action in protecting the conservatee.
Author's Technical Amendments : To correct a drafting error in
the newly added requirement that a conservator registering an
out-of-state conservatorship in California file with the court
SB 940
Page 14
an acknowledgement that the conservator received specified
information about his or her rights and responsibilities, the
author rightly proposes to amend the bill with the following
technical amendments:
On page 33, line 24, after "state" insert: and filing by the
conservator of an acknowledgement of receipt of the written
information required by Section 2015
On page 33, lines 25-26, strike out "file an acknowledgement of
receipt of the written information required by Section 2015 and"
Federally Recognized Tribes : This bill provides that a
federally recognized Indian tribe, or any possession subject to
United States jurisdiction, is considered a state under the
CCJA. Accordingly, provisions applying to states and the
corresponding jurisdiction, transfer, and registration
procedures authorize a conservator of a member of an Indian
tribe to transfer or register a California state court
conservatorship to or from a federally recognized Indian tribe,
both inside and outside of California.
However, this bill exempts from the general jurisdictional
provisions of the CCJA an Indian tribe with a tribal court that
exercises jurisdiction over proceedings that are substantially
equivalent to conservatorship proceedings. In place of the
general jurisdictional provisions, this bill provides permissive
deference to a tribal court by authorizing, but not requiring,
the state court to dismiss a conservatorship petition for a
proposed conservatee who is a member of an Indian tribe that has
jurisdiction.
The CLRC, explaining the reasoning behind the general
jurisdiction exemption, notes that tribal courts and state
courts could share concurrent jurisdiction over a proposed
conservatee. A tribal court has jurisdiction on tribal land and
has some jurisdiction over tribe members living outside tribal
land. A state court has nonregulatory civil jurisdiction over
matters arising on tribal land and civil jurisdiction over tribe
members who reside in California but outside of tribal land.
(See CLRC, Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings
Jurisdiction Act: Tribal Issues (Nov. 15, 2013); CLRC, First
Supplement to Memorandum 2013-55 Uniform Adult Guardianship and
Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act: Tribal Issues (Dec.
11, 2013).)
SB 940
Page 15
Accordingly, the bill provides separate permissive
jurisdictional provisions for an Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
This deference, which includes similar considerations for the
court in determining the appropriate forum for the
conservatorship, allows a California court to consider whether
an in-state or an out-of-state tribal court would be the most
appropriate forum and help minimize complicated concurrent
jurisdiction.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Alzheimer's Association writes:
For the 1.5 million California families and friends who
care for a loved one with Alzheimer's disease, a
significant number find a need to put in place legal
protections for the cognitively impaired older adult they
care for. By streamlining the conservatorship process and
aligning California law to the [UAGPPJA] in 37 other
states, the Legislature will ease the burden of caregiving
and minimize duplicative or unnecessary court costs, while
ensuring that the legal rights of the affected individual
are protected. Just as other states will honor
California's conservatorships, so too will California honor
theirs. This "legal reciprocity" avoids costly emergency
situations, reduces duplication of effort, and allows for a
smooth and seamless transition of care at a critical time.
California's overburdened court system will be relieved of
redundant workload, freeing legal experts to handle complex
cases where court intervention is necessary.
The AARP, also in support, states the CCJA will reduce the
"incidence of elder abuse. The [CCJA] will prevent someone who
wrongfully seizes control and assets of an elderly adult from
transporting that person across state lines and immediately
being named their guardian/ conservator. It also allows a court
to decline jurisdiction because of unjustifiable conduct and to
penalize the perpetrators of such conduct."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Law Revision Commission (sponsor)
AARP
Alzheimer's Association
SB 940
Page 16
Trusts & Estates Section of the State Bar (if amended)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334