Developments & Publications

Reviewed August 2026. Legislative entries state the chaptered authority and effective date; where a statute has since been amended, that is noted. Descriptions and annotations are from Schwartz & Schwartz and are not legal advice. Verify any statute against the Legislature’s official version at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov before relying on it.

On This Page

Legislative and Regulatory Developments

• January 1, 2026The Survival Damages Window ClosesCode of Civil Procedure section 377.34. Subdivision (b), which allowed a decedent’s estate to recover the decedent’s own predeath pain, suffering and disfigurement, applied only to actions granted trial preference before January 1, 2022 or filed on or after January 1, 2022 and before January 1, 2026. Legislation to extend the window (SB 29, Laird) was ordered inactive in September 2025 and did not pass. For actions filed on or after January 1, 2026 the subdivision (a) bar has returned. The practical consequence is that the exceptions in Welf. & Inst. Code sections 15657(b) and 15657.5(b) — which switch off the section 377.34 limitations where the heightened standards are met — are now substantially more important than they were, and in many cases are the only route to those damages after the elder’s death. See section 15657 on the Relevant Statutes page.
• January 1, 2026Spoliation by a Care Facility Can Lower the Standard of ProofAmendment to Welf. & Inst. Code section 15657 and addition of section 15657.02 (AB 251, Kalra; Stats. 2025, Ch. 433, approved October 7, 2025). Where a defendant has committed spoliation of evidence, the court may now determine the standard of proof for section 15657 remedies to be a preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence. The reach is deliberately narrow: it applies only to claims against residential care facilities for the elderly, adult community care facilities and skilled nursing facilities, with hospital-operated facilities expressly excluded; the spoliation must be intentional and must have materially prejudiced the plaintiff; the evidence must have been material and something the defendant was specifically required to preserve; and the court must issue written findings. It does not change the standard for elder abuse restraining orders under section 15657.03. See section 15657.02.
• January 1, 2026Elder Abuse Restraining Order Procedure RevisedAmendment to Welf. & Inst. Code section 15657.03 (AB 561; Stats. 2025, Ch. 267). Procedural changes to the elder abuse restraining order statute, several of which do not commence until January 1, 2027: where a petitioner has made a diligent effort and the respondent is evading service or cannot be located, the court may specify an alternative method of service reasonably calculated to give actual notice; courts must permit petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically at no charge to the petitioner; parties, adult protective services representatives and witnesses may appear remotely at the hearing without a fee; and each superior court must display electronic filing and self-help center information prominently on its home page. Counsel handling restraining order work should calendar the 2027 commencement dates. See section 15657.03.
• December 2025FTC Reports to Congress on Fraud Against Older AdultsProtecting Older Consumers, 2024–2025: A Report of the Federal Trade Commission. The Commission’s annual report to Congress, drawn from consumer fraud reports. In 2024, older adults reported losing more money to investment scams than to any other category, most often after being approached on social media, and the number reporting losses above $100,000 rose sharply. Median individual losses continued to run far higher than for younger adults — above $1,600 for those aged 80 and over — and older adults reported disproportionate losses to tech support, prize and sweepstakes, romance and government impersonation scams, including $159 million to tech support scams alone. Read the report and the Commission’s summary here.
• December 2024Federal and State Financial Regulators Issue Joint Guidance on Elder Financial ExploitationInteragency Statement on Elder Financial Exploitation. Seven agencies — the Federal Reserve, CFPB, FDIC, FinCEN, NCUA, OCC and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors — jointly set out the risk-management practices they expect of supervised institutions, including trusted contact designation, employee training, transaction holds and disbursement delays, timely suspicious activity reporting, reporting to law enforcement and Adult Protective Services, and providing financial records to authorities. Useful in any case where the question is what a bank knew, or should have caught. Open the statement here.
• April 2024FinCEN Quantifies the Scale of Elder Financial ExploitationFinancial Trend Analysis: Elder Financial Exploitation Threat Pattern & Trend Information, June 2022 to June 2023. FinCEN’s review of Bank Secrecy Act filings found that 4,472 financial institutions filed 155,415 reports of suspected elder financial exploitation in a single twelve-month period, associated with more than $27 billion in reported suspicious activity. The analysis distinguishes “elder theft” — the taking of an older adult’s assets, funds or income by a person in a position of trust — from “elder scams” perpetrated by strangers, a division that maps closely onto the difference between a financial abuse claim against a family member or fiduciary and one against an outside predator. Open the analysis here.
• July 2022Treble Damages Extended to VeteransAmendment to Civil Code section 3345 (AB 1730, Davies; Stats. 2022, Ch. 78, effective January 1, 2023). The enhanced “penal damages” provision that permits a trier of fact to impose up to three times the otherwise authorized fine, penalty or other punitive remedy — long available in actions brought on behalf of senior citizens and disabled persons — now extends to veterans as well, as defined in Gov. Code section 18540.4. The three factors that trigger the multiplier are unchanged in substance: whether the defendant knew or should have known the conduct was directed at a member of a protected class; whether the conduct cost the victim a primary residence, principal employment, source of income, retirement savings, pension or benefit payments, or assets essential to health or welfare; and whether the victim was substantially more vulnerable than the general public and actually suffered substantial physical, emotional or economic harm. According to the bill’s legislative history, veterans and military families are targeted disproportionately by fraud, including by scammers impersonating the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs and using military-specific language to gain trust. A practical consequence: a veteran under 65 who is not a dependent adult, and so falls outside the Elder Abuse Act entirely, may still come within section 3345. Read more.
• June 15, 2022Treasury Issues Red-Flag Guidance to Financial InstitutionsFinCEN Advisory on Elder Financial Exploitation (FIN-2022-A002). Issued on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, the advisory identifies twelve behavioral and twelve financial red flags of elder financial exploitation and directs institutions to flag their reports with the key term “EFE FIN-2022-A002.” It supersedes and expands on FinCEN’s original 2011 advisory. Several of the enumerated indicators — a new acquaintance accompanying an older customer to the bank, abrupt changes in account activity, reluctance to speak without a caregiver present — track closely with the isolation and undue influence factors under Welf. & Inst. Code sections 15610.43 and 15610.70. Open the advisory here.
• July 2021The Definition of Neglect Is ExpandedAmendment to Welf. & Inst. Code section 15610.57 (AB 135; Stats. 2021, Ch. 85, effective July 16, 2021). The definition of neglect was expanded to reach the substantial inability or failure of an elder or dependent adult to manage their own finances, and the failure to meet any of the enumerated needs as a result of poor cognitive functioning, mental limitation, substance abuse or chronic poor health. New subdivision (c) provides that neglect includes being homeless where the elder or dependent adult is also unable to meet those needs. The financial-management category matters in this practice because it brings self-neglect of finances within the statutory definition, which in turn bears on the heightened remedies under section 15657. See the definition of neglect.
• June 2019Caregiver Marriage Loophole ClosedAmendment to Prob. Code sections 21380, 21382 and 21611 (AB 328, Maienschein; Stats. 2019, Ch. 10, effective January 1, 2020). The presumption that a donative transfer to the care custodian of a dependent adult is the product of fraud or undue influence had a gap: spouses, domestic partners and cohabitants were exempt from it, so a caregiver who married the dependent adult could take a gift or bequest free of the presumption entirely. New Prob. Code section 21380(a)(4) closes that gap, extending the presumption to a care custodian who commenced a marriage, cohabitation or domestic partnership with a dependent adult while providing services, or within 90 days after services last ended, where the transfer occurred or the instrument was executed less than six months after the relationship began. Section 21382 was amended in tandem so the spouse-and-cohabitant exemption no longer swallows the new paragraph. The presumption remains rebuttable, but only by clear and convincing evidence. The bill also amended section 21611 so that a care custodian who marries a dependent adult cannot assert “omitted spouse” rights — and thereby claim a statutory share of separate property without any estate plan at all — where the decedent dies less than six months after the marriage. Sponsored by the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association and supported by the California Judges Association. Read more.
• November 16, 2016GAO Reports on Abuse by Court-Appointed GuardiansU.S. Government Accountability Office, Elder Abuse: The Extent of Abuse by Guardians Is Unknown, but Some Measures Exist to Help Protect Older Adults (GAO-17-33). GAO found that the national extent of abuse by guardians cannot be determined, because courts do not reliably record the number of guardians serving older adults, the number of older adults under guardianship, or the number of abuse cases involving a guardian — officials in six states described data limitations that made even basic figures unavailable. In the twenty cases GAO examined in detail, guardians took a total of $5.4 million from 158 mostly elderly victims, under the supervision of courts in fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Where abuse was observed, financial exploitation was the most common form. Open the report here.
• January 1, 2014The Donative Transfer Restrictions Are ReplacedRepeal of former Prob. Code section 21350 et seq.; substitution of section 21380 et seq. The donative transfer restriction scheme that had governed since 1993, and under which Bernard v. Foley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 794 and In re Estate of Odian (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 152 were decided, was repealed as of January 1, 2014 pursuant to former section 21355 and replaced by the current Part 3.7 at section 21380 et seq. The replacement is narrower in two respects that matter: the care custodian presumption now applies only where the transferor is a dependent adult, and only to instruments executed during the period services were provided or within 90 days before or after. Decisions under the former statute remain instructive on what counts as care custodian services but must be read against the current text. For the modern analysis, see Robinson v. Gutierrez (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 278 on the Notable Case Law page.
• September 2013“Undue Influence” More Clearly DefinedAddition of Prob. Code section 86 and Welf. & Inst. Code section 15610.70 (AB 140, Dickinson; Stats. 2013, Ch. 668, effective January 1, 2014). California received a statutory definition of undue influence for the first time: excessive persuasion that overcomes another person’s free will and results in inequity, assessed against four factors — the victim’s vulnerability, the influencer’s apparent authority, the actions or tactics used, and the equity of the result. Section 86 carries that definition into wills, trusts and conservatorship matters and states expressly that it supplements the common law without superseding it, so both frameworks remain available. Section 15610.30 was amended in tandem so that financial elder abuse reaches property taken by undue influence as newly defined. Neither section 86 nor section 15610.70 has been amended since. Read more.
• July 2013Attorney’s Fees Awardable in More SituationsAmendment to Prob. Code sections 859 and 4231.5 (AB 381, Chau; Stats. 2013, Ch. 99, effective January 1, 2014). A discretionary award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs became available in actions for the bad faith wrongful taking of property under both sections, where previously they carried the double damages remedy alone and fee recovery generally meant proving financial elder abuse under Welf. & Inst. Code section 15657.5. The bill also extended section 859 expressly to property belonging to an elder or a dependent adult, and extended section 4231.5(c) beyond bad faith wrongful takings to reach takings accomplished by undue influence in bad faith or through the commission of financial elder abuse. Section 859 has not been amended since. Read more.
• July 2011Double Damages Awardable Where Financial Elder Abuse Is PresentAmendment to Prob. Code section 859 (AB 354, Silva; Stats. 2011, Ch. 55, effective January 1, 2012). The enhanced remedy of double damages, previously available only for a “bad faith wrongful taking” of property belonging to a decedent’s estate, a conservatee, a minor or a trust, became available on a second and independent basis: property taken, concealed or disposed of “by the use of undue influence in bad faith or through the commission of elder or dependent adult financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.” Double damages may therefore be available without any separate showing of a bad faith taking, where the conduct instead satisfies the financial abuse definition. Read more.
  Two cautions on this oneFirst, the bill as introduced would have reached elder or dependent adult abuse generally, defined by reference to the whole of the Act at Welf. & Inst. Code section 15600 et seq.; the version amended in the Assembly and ultimately enacted is confined to financial abuse under section 15610.30 alone. Second, section 859 was amended again by AB 381 in 2013, so the text this bill produced is not the current statute.
• June 2010Double Damages Available in Power of Attorney ActionsAmendment to Prob. Code section 4231 and addition of section 4231.5 (SB 1038, Harman; Stats. 2010, Ch. 48, effective January 1, 2011). The double damages remedy became available in power of attorney actions, addressing the wrongful conduct of attorneys-in-fact concerning the principal’s property, alongside a statutory measure of damages for breach of an agent’s duty and a discretionary power in the court to excuse an agent who acted reasonably and in good faith. Equally significant, and easily missed: the bill deleted the provision that had shielded an uncompensated attorney-in-fact from liability for loss to the principal’s property absent bad faith, intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence. Since January 1, 2011 an unpaid agent — typically an adult child — has been held to the same prudent person standard as a paid one. Subdivision (c) of section 4231.5 was later amended by AB 381, so that portion of the 2010 text is not current. Read more.
• March 2010The Study Behind California’s Definition of Undue InfluenceMary Joy Quinn et al., Undue Influence: Definitions and Applications (Final Report to the Borchard Foundation Center on Law and Aging). Undertaken by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, with the Administrative Office of the Courts, the project was prompted by the absence of any definition of undue influence in the Probate Code — the term appeared as to the execution of wills and as to gifts without ever being defined. The report surveyed judges, attorneys, court investigators and Adult Protective Services workers, and proposed the structured, multi-factor framework that the Legislature adopted three years later as Welf. & Inst. Code section 15610.70. Essential background for anyone arguing the four factors. Open the report here.
• March 2009MetLife Study of Elder Financial AbuseBroken Trust: Elders, Family, and Finances. A study by the MetLife Mature Market Institute with the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, reviewing the scholarly and professional literature alongside an analysis of National Center on Elder Abuse newsfeed reporting. Now dated, and retained for historical reference; the Institute’s June 2011 follow-up, The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse: Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America’s Elders, is hosted by the Department of Justice. For current figures, prefer the FinCEN and FTC material above. Open the 2009 study here.
• February 2008The Rights of Financially Exploited Elders Substantially ExpandedAmendment to Welf. & Inst. Code sections 15610.30 and 15657.5; addition of sections 15657.6 and 15657.7 (SB 1140, Steinberg; Stats. 2008, Ch. 475, signed September 2008, effective January 1, 2009). The most consequential single amendment to the financial abuse remedies in the Act’s history, and it did four things. It rewrote the definition of financial abuse, adding undue influence as a third route to liability and adding the subdivision (c) language deeming property taken whenever an elder is deprived of any property right, expressly including by agreement, donative transfer or testamentary bequest. It removed the requirement that the Civ. Code section 3294(b) employer standards be satisfied before compensatory damages or fees could be awarded. It added section 15657.6, requiring return of property on demand where the elder lacked capacity. And it added section 15657.7, supplying a four-year limitations period running from discovery, where the Act previously had none. Read more.
• January 2008No Contest Clauses Substantially RewrittenCalifornia Law Revision Commission, Revision of No Contest Clause Statute. Following its 2007 tentative recommendation, the Commission issued its final recommendation to narrow the categories of pleading that can trigger a forfeiture and to eliminate the declaratory relief procedure formerly available under Prob. Code section 21320. The recommendation was enacted as SB 1264 (Harman), signed July 22, 2008 and operative January 1, 2010, and is now codified at Prob. Code sections 21310 et seq. The practical effect is twofold: enforcement is confined to the categories in section 21311, most commonly a direct contest brought without probable cause, and the safe harbor petition no longer exists — a beneficiary can no longer obtain an advance declaration that a proposed filing will not trigger a forfeiture. On the current framework, see Donkin v. Donkin (2013) 58 Cal.4th 412. Read the Commission’s recommendation here.
• July 12, 2007Prejudgment Attachment Extended to Financial Elder AbuseAddition of Welf. & Inst. Code section 15657.01 (SB 611, Steinberg; Stats. 2007, Ch. 45, effective January 1, 2008). California’s Attachment Law was opened to financial elder abuse claims. An elder, or a representative acting for one, can obtain an attachment lien on the alleged wrongdoer’s assets before judgment, on a showing of probable validity and an undertaking. The force of the section lies in its opening words: by displacing Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010, it makes attachment available on a tort theory and against an individual defendant, neither of which the general Attachment Law permits. Note the mandatory pleading requirement — the application must refer to section 15657.01 expressly. A useful safeguard when dealing with defendants who endeavor to take the money and run. Read more.

Guides and Reference Publications

• Judicial Council of California, Handbook for Conservators (current edition)The official handbook that Prob. Code section 1835 requires be given to every newly appointed conservator in California, covering the conservator’s duties, the standards governing placement and medical decisions, inventory and accounting obligations, and the consequences of a breach. The plainest available statement of what a conservator is actually required to do — and therefore a useful reference point when the question is whether one failed to do it. Open the handbook here.
• Foundation of the State Bar of California, Seniors & the Law: A Guide for Maturing CaliforniansA comprehensive plain-language guide to the issues facing an aging population, with information and referrals on everything from Social Security and long-term care insurance to caregiving, estate planning and consumer scams. Open the publication here.
• Protecting Mom and Dad’s Money: What to Do When You Suspect Financial Abuse (Consumer Reports, 2013)A consumer-facing overview of the warning signs of financial exploitation and the first steps a family can take. Dated, but still a serviceable orientation for family members who are just beginning to suspect a problem. Open the article here.

Third-party reports and publications are linked as a convenience and are the work of their respective authors. Schwartz & Schwartz does not endorse any linked organization, and nothing on this page is legal advice. Statutory descriptions summarize legislation as chaptered; where a provision has since been amended, the current text on the Relevant Statutes page controls.