Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guardianship Judge Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proposal to raise bond protections for judges who oversee guardianships
Summary
Senate Bill 387 would increase bond requirements for judges who preside over guardianship proceedings to reduce judges’ personal liability when guardianship estate losses exceed county bond amounts. Statutory probate judges and a Travis County judge testified supporting increased protection.
Senate Bill 387, presented by the Dean of the Senate as a refile of a prior measure, would raise bond protections for county judges who preside over guardianship proceedings so they face reduced personal liability if a guardianship estate suffers loss that exceeds the county's bond. The committee heard testimony from statutory and probate judges who supported the change and left the bill pending.
Sen. Jane Nelson explained the bill’s origin: judges in smaller counties face exposure if a guardianship estate suffers losses greater than the statutory county bond. Current law requires county bonds of at least $100,000 for counties with populations up to 125,000 and $250,000 for larger counties; proponents said those amounts can be insufficient in some claims alleging gross negligence in monitoring guardianships. The bill would align bond protections with those already available to statutory probate court judges in some jurisdictions.
Judge Guy Herman of the Travis County statutory probate court testified in support, saying statutory probate judges frequently assist rural counties and have observed local judges express concern about insufficient bond levels. “Those bonds are too low,” Judge Herman said, describing requests from county judges for higher protections and endorsing the refiled bill.
No opponents registered to testify and the committee took no vote; SB 387 was left pending for further consideration.
