An act to amend Section 2628 of the Probate Code, relating to guardianships and conservatorships.
AB 2090 would amend Probate Code Section 2628 to expand when a court may excuse a guardian or conservator from filing otherwise required accountings. Under current law, that exemption can apply only when the estate’s net value, excluding the ward’s or conservatee’s residence, is under $15,000 and monthly income excluding public benefits is under $2,000, along with other conditions. The bill raises those thresholds to $30,000 in net estate value and $3,200 in monthly income, while keeping the requirement that all non-retained income be spent for the benefit of the ward or conservatee.
The bill does not eliminate court oversight entirely. A ward, conservatee, interested person, or the court on its own motion could still require a full accounting, and any period that does not meet the exemption criteria would still require the guardian or conservator to file the account. In practical terms, the measure would make the accounting exemption available to a broader set of smaller estates and modest-income conservatorships and guardianships, reducing paperwork and court filing obligations in those cases.
AB 2090 would amend a single provision of the Probate Code governing guardianship and conservatorship accountings. The main legal change is the increase in the financial thresholds for a court-ordered exemption from filing periodic accounts, from $15,000 to $30,000 in estate value and from $2,000 to $3,200 in monthly income, excluding public benefit payments and the ward’s or conservatee’s residence. The bill would therefore affect guardians, conservators, wards, conservatees, interested persons, and probate courts by expanding the number of estates eligible for simplified accounting treatment while preserving judicial discretion and the ability to demand an accounting when needed.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received positively and without recorded opposition. It passed the Assembly committee stage 12-0 and later passed the Assembly 73-0, and it was placed on the consent calendar, which typically indicates broad agreement and limited controversy. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the materials about the policy merits or drawbacks.
No notable contention appears in the provided record. The only likely policy question is whether increasing the exemption thresholds could reduce transparency or oversight in some guardianships and conservatorships, versus the benefit of reducing administrative burdens for smaller estates. The bill preserves safeguards by allowing the ward, conservatee, interested persons, or the court to require an accounting, which may have helped limit opposition.