BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 940 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 2, 2014 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mike Gatto, Chair SB 940 (Jackson) - As Amended: June 11, 2014 Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:9-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill enacts the California Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act (CCJA), which, effective January 1, 2016, enacts provisions for the interstate jurisdiction, transfer, and recognition of conservatorships, including: 1)Providing conditions under which a California court has jurisdiction to appoint a conservator for a proposed conservatee. 2)Providing 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. 3)Requiring a court investigator, upon issuance of an order provisionally granting a petition to transfer a conservatee from another state, to promptly commence an investigation, as specified, and prepare a report. 4)Establishing provisions for the transfer of a California conservatorship to another state. 5)Requiring the court to hold a hearing on a transfer petition and issue an order provisionally granting the petition unless the court makes specific determinations. 6)Authorizing courts to charge $30 for the registration of a conservatorship established pursuant to the CCJA. 7)Requiring the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2016, to develop court rules and forms necessary for the SB 940 Page 2 implementation of the CCJA. FISCAL EFFECT 1)The bill should result in neither an increase or decrease in the number of conservatorship proceedings in California, but should better facilitate the process when conservatorships are transferred to California jurisdiction, thus resulting in a net reduction in court costs. 2)Costs for the Judicial Council to develop or modify rules of courts will be minor and absorbable. COMMENTS 1)Background . Conservatorships are becoming more common across the United States as the number of elderly with diminished capacity increases. Additionally, given 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, 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 in 2007 proposed the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings 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) of 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. 2)Purpose . SB 940, effective January 1, 2016, implements the final version of the UAGPPJA recommended by the CLRC and SB 940 Page 3 establishes the California Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act. The author believes that SB 940 provides clear guidance for conservatorship jurisdictional and transfer issues and streamlines the multi-state conservatorship process for conservators, conservatees, and the 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 contends 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. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081