Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservator Liability Hb125 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Advances Substitute for HB 125 on Conservator Liability; Original Bill Recommended Not Pass
Summary
Lawmakers adopted a committee substitute for HB 125 that creates a court process for conservators to seek approval of actions and to limit post‑service liability; the committee recommended 'do pass' on the substitute and 'do not pass' on the original bill by roll call.
The House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee considered House Bill 125, a measure that amends conservatorship practice to allow a conservator to petition the court to approve proposed actions and to obtain greater certainty about liability exposure. Committee members adopted a committee substitute and recommended advancing the substitute while recommending the original bill not pass.
Proponents said the substitute restores familiar court processes used in trust and probate practice and addresses a problem created by 2018 revisions to the state probate code that left some conservators fearful of open‑ended liability. Greg McKenzie (testifying by Zoom) described the substitute’s core mechanics: a conservator files a written petition to have an act or report approved, serves persons entitled to notice, interested parties may object, and the court holds a hearing before granting approval. McKenzie said that approval provides the conservator with judicial protection against later liability for the approved action.
Representatives of the Bankers Association and other stakeholders supported the change as a way to encourage qualified organizations and individuals to serve as conservators without perpetual exposure to liability. Committee members asked technical questions about the substitute’s notice requirements, termination procedures, and how petitions interact with processes for removal of a conservator.
The committee recorded roll‑call votes. The committee adopted the substitute and later voted 4–1 to report the committee substitute favorably and to report the original bill with a recommendation of 'do not pass.' The roll call recorded Representative Block, Representative Romero, Representative Thompson and the committee chair as voting yes, and Representative Lord as voting no (Lord recorded a no with explanation). The committee also noted that executors and interested parties retain existing processes to petition for removal or restoration of capacity.
The committee’s favorable report on the substitute advances the revised process for judicial approval of conservator actions to the next stage in the legislative process.
