Requiring certain county agencies to petition a court to freeze accounts of certain individuals being financially exploited

What it would have done

Summary by the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, if a county elder-adult-at-risk agency receives a report of alleged abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, or self-neglect (abuse) of an individual who is over 60 and who has experienced, is currently experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing abuse (elder adult at risk), the agency generally must respond to the report or refer the report to another agency for investigation. Similarly, if a county adult-at-risk agency believes that an adult who has a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs his or her ability to care for his or her needs and who has experienced, is experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing abuse (adult at risk) is the subject of abuse, the adult-at-risk agency may investigate to determine whether the adult at risk is in need of protective services. Current law provides several options for investigation and response, including visits to the person's residence, observation, or reviews of certain records.

Under this bill, if either the elder-adult-at-risk agency or the adult-at-risk agency conducts an investigation that indicates that an individual at risk is the subject of financial exploitation, the agency must file a petition with a court to require the individual's financial institution to refuse transfers or withdrawals from, or "freeze," an account held by the individual. The bill requires that the petition specify the account and the financial institution and name the person who is likely, without court action, to exploit financially the individual at risk. The court must order the financial institution to freeze the account if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the account has been used to exploit the individual at risk, or is likely to be used by the named person to exploit the individual at risk, based upon the named person's prior conduct or based upon the findings of the agency. The court may hear testimony from the individual at risk; the individual's guardian or agent, if any; the person alleged to be the financial exploiter; and a representative of the financial institution. If the court issues an order freezing the account, the court has discretion to permit some activity on the account and to set the length of the freeze for any period up to one year.

Who's behind it

7 representatives are its authors⁠. 6 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.

9 more lawmakers signed on in support⁠.

What it would cost

State agencies filed a cost estimate. Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

• Fiscal Estimate From CTS

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

• Amendment AA1-AB691