Probate: guardians and conservators; powers and duties; modify. Amends secs. 5410 & 5423 of 1998 PA 386 (MCL 700.5410 & 700.5423). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4169'25
HB 5739 would amend Michigan’s Estates and Protected Individuals Code to change when a conservator must post bond and to add additional safeguards for conservators handling a protected person’s property. Under the bill, a court would be required to order a bond when the value of cash and readily convertible property in the estate exceeds a specified threshold, unless certain exceptions apply. The bill adds exceptions for estates with no readily convertible cash, restricted accounts used for annual care costs, conservators with trust powers, cases where a bond would create financial hardship, or where the court states on the record why a bond is unnecessary.
The bill also expands and clarifies a conservator’s powers over estate assets, while preserving court oversight for major transactions. It authorizes a conservator to manage, invest, lease, borrow against, insure, litigate over, and otherwise administer estate property, but continues to require court approval before selling or encumbering a protected individual’s principal dwelling or other real property. It further requires court-directed handling of proceeds from approved real estate sales and requires a conservator to seek court instructions within 14 days after receiving previously undisclosed property worth at least $25,000, with cash or cash-equivalent property to be placed in a specific account under court oversight.
The bill’s practical impact would be to tighten financial controls in conservatorships, especially where significant liquid assets are involved, while also giving conservators broad administrative authority to manage estates efficiently. It would affect probate courts, conservators, protected individuals, and interested persons in guardianship and conservatorship proceedings by increasing the circumstances in which bonds are mandatory and by adding reporting and deposit requirements for substantial newly discovered assets. The bill amends sections 5410 and 5423 of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code.
Overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable based on the bill’s structure, though no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided. The bill reads as a technical probate reform aimed at balancing flexibility for conservators with stronger protections against misuse of assets. Because there is no discussion record, there is no evidence of formal opposition or support in the available materials.
The main point of potential contention is the increased mandatory bond requirement and the added court-approval and reporting obligations, which could be viewed as protective safeguards by some and as added administrative burden or cost by others. The bill’s exceptions for hardship and for conservators with trust powers suggest an effort to address those concerns, but the balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and limiting conservator discretion remains the central policy issue.
HB 5739 would amend MCL 700.5410 and 700.5423 in the Estates and Protected Individuals Code to make bond requirements more mandatory in higher-value conservatorships, while preserving judicial discretion through specified exceptions. It would also add new procedural requirements for conservators who receive substantial previously undisclosed property and would require court oversight for the deposit of real estate sale proceeds and cash-like assets. The bill would primarily affect probate courts, conservators, wards/protected individuals, and parties with an interest in conservatorship estates.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no documented public debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a technical, protective probate measure with a generally cautious and reform-oriented tone. Its emphasis on court oversight, bonding, and asset controls suggests a policy goal of preventing mismanagement rather than expanding conservator discretion.
The likely area of contention is whether the bill strikes the right balance between protecting protected individuals’ assets and imposing additional costs and administrative steps on conservators and estates. Mandatory bonding for larger estates could be seen as a safeguard against loss or misuse, but it may also create expense or delay, especially for smaller or less liquid estates. The exceptions for restricted accounts, trust-power conservators, financial hardship, and on-the-record judicial findings appear designed to soften those concerns, indicating that the main debate would likely center on the scope and cost of the new protections.