Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
<< Previous Rule[ Back to Title Index ]Next Rule >>Â Â Â Â | Â Â Â Â Â Printer-friendly version of this page2024 California Rules of Court
Rule 7.756. Compensation of conservators and guardians
(a) Standards for determining just and reasonable compensation
The court may consider the following nonexclusive factors in determining just and reasonable compensation for a conservator from the estate of the conservatee or a guardian from the estate of the ward for services rendered in the best interest of the conservatee or ward up to that time:
(1) Â The size and nature of the conservatee's or ward's estate;
(2) Â The benefit to the conservatee or ward, or his or her estate, of the conservator's or guardian's services;
(3) Â The necessity for the services performed;
(4) Â The conservatee's or ward's anticipated future needs and income;
(5) Â The time spent by the conservator or guardian in the performance of services;
(6) Â Whether the services performed were routine or required more than ordinary skill or judgment;
(7) Â Any unusual skill, expertise, or experience brought to the performance of services;
(8) Â The conservator's or guardian's estimate of the value of the services performed; and
(9) Â The compensation customarily allowed by the court in the community where the court is located for the management of conservatorships or guardianships of similar size and complexity.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2023.)
(b) No single factor determinative
No single factor listed in (a) should be the exclusive basis for the court's determination of just and reasonable compensation for services rendered in the best interest of the conservatee or ward.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2023.)
(c) No inflexible maximum or minimum compensation or maximum approved hourly rate
This rule is not authority for a court to set an inflexible maximum or minimum compensation or a maximum approved hourly rate for compensation.
Nov 10, 1994
Judgment (Other)
Sonoma County
Sonoma County, CA
Apr 26, 2006
Relief Denied
Superior
Sonoma County, CA
Jan 06, 2010
Dismissal
Sonoma County
Sonoma County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.