AB 2090 amends Probate Code section 2628 to broaden when a court may excuse a guardian or conservator from filing the inventories and accountings that probate law normally requires. The bill raises the asset and income thresholds used as the primary eligibility tests for that exemption, while leaving the court’s discretion and the petition rights of interested persons intact.
For practitioners and court administrators this is a technical but consequential change: more low-value estates and low-income wards will be eligible for an administrative shortcut that reduces filings and hearings. That lowers compliance costs for fiduciaries but also reduces routine judicial oversight of small estates, which shifts the burden of detecting mismanagement away from regular court review and toward interested parties and ex parte challenges.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adjusts the eligibility criteria under which a court may order that a guardian or conservator need not file the inventories and accountings otherwise required by the Probate Code. It preserves the existing framework—court discretion, the exclusion of the ward’s residence from the asset test, and the ability of interested persons to seek an accounting—but raises the bar so more small estates qualify.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are private and professional guardians and conservators handling lower-value estates, probate courts that process routine accountings, and attorneys who prepare filings or represent interested persons. Wards, conservatees, and family members who monitor fiduciaries are also directly affected because their default oversight avenue (regular court accounting) becomes less frequent.
Why It Matters
By increasing the pool of estates that can skip formal accountings, the bill reduces administrative burden and filing costs across the probate system, changing how courts allocate time and resources. At the same time, it alters the default model of oversight for vulnerable persons—moving monitoring from scheduled court review to ad hoc challenges and review-on-demand.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law a guardian or conservator generally must file periodic inventories and accountings with the probate court. A statutory carve-out lets the court waive that requirement when the estate is small and income during the accounting period is modest, among other conditions.
AB 2090 changes how “small” and “modest” are defined so that a larger group of estates may qualify for the waiver.
The bill keeps the basic safety valves in place. The ward’s or conservatee’s residence remains excluded from the asset calculation, public benefits are excluded from the income calculation, and the court still retains discretion to require an accounting even when the numeric conditions are met.
Likewise, the ward or any interested person can petition the court at any time to compel a formal accounting; the court may act on its own motion and can resolve such petitions ex parte or following notice, at judicial discretion.Practically, the change means many guardians and conservators who previously prepared formal accountings for low-value estates may stop doing so unless an interested person asks the court to intervene or the court requires it. That shifts the operational workload: fewer routine filings for clerks and attorneys, but potentially more litigation or ex parte petitions where family members or advocates are concerned about management.
It also elevates the importance of contemporaneous recordkeeping by fiduciaries—if courts no longer see routine accountings, guardians will need reliable documentation to defend against later petitions.Finally, because the amendment modifies only the numeric thresholds and not the underlying fiduciary duties or the court’s enforcement powers, the statutory tools to remedy mismanagement (surcharge, removal, restitution) remain available. What changes is how and when those tools are likely to be deployed: reactively in response to petitions rather than proactively through regular oversight filings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2090 revises Probate Code §2628 to raise the asset eligibility test for accounting exemptions so the estate’s net value (excluding the residence) may be up to $30,000 to qualify.
The bill raises the monthly income cap used for the exemption (excluding public benefit payments) from $2,000 per month to $3,200 per month.
The existing condition that all estate income not retained must have been spent for the ward’s benefit remains a statutory requirement for the exemption.
Section 2628(b) continues to allow the ward, conservatee, or any interested person to petition the court to require a formal accounting; the court may grant such relief ex parte or after notice.
If at any accounting period the numeric or other statutory conditions are not met, subdivision (c) requires the guardian or conservator to file the full accounting as normally required.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Net-asset threshold for exemption (excluding residence)
This paragraph raises the numeric cutoff used to determine whether a court may exempt a guardian or conservator from filing an accounting. The statutory formula still excludes the ward’s residence from the calculation, but the increased dollar figure expands the universe of estates that meet the asset test. Practically, more small estates that previously triggered routine filings will now be eligible for the waiver, reducing mandatory inventory submissions.
Monthly income cap for exemption (excluding public benefits)
This provision increases the monthly-income ceiling that the court uses to judge whether a conservatorship or guardianship estate is ‘modest’ for exemption purposes. Public benefit payments remain outside the income calculation, so means-tested benefits will not disqualify an estate. The change means higher but still-limited monthly receipts will not automatically compel an accounting.
Spending requirement for non-retained income
The bill leaves intact the rule that, during the accounting period, any income the estate did not retain must have been spent for the ward’s benefit. That condition functions as a substantive safeguard: even if an estate otherwise meets the numeric thresholds, the exemption depends on demonstrating that income was used properly rather than diverted.
Preserved right of petition and court discretion
Subdivision (b) reiterates and preserves the right of the ward or any interested person to ask the court to require a formal accounting despite an exemption order. It also confirms the court’s authority to act on its own motion and to handle such petitions ex parte or with notice. This is the chief procedural check on the expanded exemption: interested parties retain an on-demand oversight tool.
When the exemption does not apply
If any of the criteria in subdivision (a) are not satisfied for an accounting period, subdivision (c) obligates the fiduciary to file the full accounting. This preserves a bright-line obligation that triggers standard reporting and judicial review whenever estate circumstances exceed the statutory thresholds or other conditions fail.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private and professional guardians/conservators — They will likely file fewer routine accountings for small estates, cutting preparation time, filing fees, and attorney costs where the numeric tests are met.
- Wards and conservatees with low-net-worth households — For some, fewer court appearances or filings can mean lower administrative disruption and quicker access to funds that otherwise would be wrapped up in reporting.
- Probate clerks and court administrators — The change should reduce the volume of routine accountings that require docketing and review, freeing resources for contested matters and complex estates.
Who Bears the Cost
- Wards and conservatees at risk of financial exploitation — Reduced routine court oversight increases reliance on passive safeguards and on interested parties to detect and pursue problems.
- Family members, advocates, and guardians ad litem — These stakeholders may need to monitor fiduciaries more actively and bring petitions or ex parte motions, shifting time and costs onto private actors.
- Probate judges and court calendars — While routine filings may drop, courts could see more discrete contested petitions or emergency ex parte applications, which consume judicial time unpredictably.
- Small fiduciary firms and solo practitioners — Although filings decrease, the need to maintain detailed contemporaneous records for defense against future petitions may raise compliance and malpractice risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is efficiency versus protective oversight: AB 2090 reduces administrative friction by expanding the pool of guardianships and conservatorships eligible to skip formal accountings, but doing so weakens routine judicial review that helps detect mismanagement—leaving the vulnerable dependent on private parties and after-the-fact remedies rather than proactive supervision.
Raising the numeric thresholds is a blunt tool: it simplifies administration for many routine cases but also removes a regular point of judicial contact that historically caught errors or abuse early. The statute keeps several safeguards—exclusion of the residence and public benefits, the spending-for-benefit condition, and the petition mechanism—but those are reactive rather than preventive.
Courts will have to develop practical standards for deciding when to require an accounting despite the numbers, and attorneys will need to advise fiduciaries on recordkeeping practices that can survive later scrutiny.
Several implementation questions could generate litigation or procedural guidance. The bill does not define evidentiary standards for proving that income was spent for the ward’s benefit, nor does it specify how courts should verify self-reported asset or income figures before granting an exemption.
Ambiguities about what counts as 'public benefit payments' for exclusion could produce disputes in mixed-income cases. Finally, the shift may produce uneven effects across demographic groups: jurisdictions with fewer resources may rely more heavily on the exemption, while wealthier or more litigious families will continue to use petitions as a check, potentially creating geographic variation in oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.