An Act To Adopt the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act
Maine Legislature, Session 125, LD 1377
Committee: Judiciary
Sponsors: SANBORN, BRANNIGAN, MacDONALD, ROTUNDO, STUCKEY, WEBSTER, CRAVEN

Legislative Document 
No. 1377 
H.P. 1016 
House of Representatives, March 31, 2011 
An Act To Adopt the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act 
Reference to the Committee on Judiciary suggested and ordered printed. 
HEATHER J.R. PRIEST 
Clerk 
Presented by Representative SANBORN of Gorham. 
Cosponsored by Senator BRANNIGAN of Cumberland and 
Representatives: MacDONALD of Boothbay, ROTUNDO of Lewiston, STUCKEY of 
Portland, WEBSTER of Freeport, Senator: CRAVEN of Androscoggin. 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. 1.  18-A MRSA Art. 5, Pt. 5-A is enacted to read: 
UNIFORM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTIVE 
PROCEEDINGS JURISDICTION ACT 
PREFATORY NOTE  
            The Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (UGPPA), 
which was last revised in 1997, is a comprehensive act addressing all aspects of 
guardianships and protective proceedings for both minors and adults. The Uniform 
Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) has 
a much narrower scope, dealing only with jurisdiction and related issues in adult 
proceedings. Drafting of the UAGPPJA began in 2005. The Act had its first 
reading at the Uniform Law Commission 2006 Annual Meeting, and was 
approved at the 2007 Annual Meeting.  
            States may enact the UAGPPJA either separately or as part of the broader 
UGPPA or the even broader Uniform Probate Code (UPC), of which the UGPPA 
forms a part. Conforming amendments to the UGPPA and UPC are expected to be 
approved in 2009 that will facilitate enactment of the UAGPPJA by states that 
have enacted the UGPPA or UPC.  
The Problem of Multiple Jurisdiction 
            Because the United States has 50 plus guardianship systems, problems of 
determining jurisdiction are frequent. Questions of which state has jurisdiction to 
appoint a guardian or conservator can arise between an American state and 
another country. But more frequently, problems arise because the individual has 
contacts with more than one American state.  
            In nearly all American states, a guardian may be appointed by a court in a 
state in which the individual is domiciled or is physically present. In nearly all 
American states, a conservator may be appointed by a court in a state in which the 
individual is domiciled or has property. Contested cases in which courts in more 
than one state have jurisdiction are becoming more frequent. Sometimes these 
cases arise because the adult is physically located in a state other than the adult's 
domicile. Sometimes the case arises because of uncertainty as to the adult's 
domicile, particularly if the adult owns a second home in another state. There is a 
need for an effective mechanism for resolving multi-jurisdictional disputes. 
Article 2 of the UAGPPJA is intended to provide such a mechanism. 
The Problem of Transfer  
            Oftentimes, problems arise even absent a dispute. Even if everyone is 
agreed that an already existing guardianship or conservatorship should be moved 
to another state, few states have streamlined procedures for transferring a 
proceeding to another state or for accepting such a transfer. In most states, all of 
the procedures for an original appointment must be repeated, a time consuming 
and expensive prospect. Article 3 of the UAGPPJA is designed to provide an 
expedited process for making such transfers, thereby avoiding the need to 
relitigate incapacity and whether the guardian or conservator appointed in the first 
state was an appropriate selection.  
The Problem of Out-of-State Recognition  
            The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires 
that court orders in one state be honored in another state. But there are exceptions 
to the full faith and credit doctrine, of which guardianship and protective 
proceedings is one. Sometimes, guardianship or protective proceedings must be 
initiated in a second state because of the refusal of financial institutions, care 
facilities, and the courts to recognize a guardianship or protective order issued in 
another state. Article 4 of the UAGPPJA creates a registration procedure. 
Following registration of the guardianship or protective order in the second state, 
the guardian may exercise in the second state all powers authorized in the original 
state's order of appointment except for powers that cannot be legally exercised in 
the second state. 
The Proposed Uniform Law and the Child Custody Analogy  
            Similar problems of jurisdiction existed for many years in the United 
States in connection with child custody determinations. If one parent lived in one 
state and the other parent lived in another state, frequently courts in more than one 
state had jurisdiction to issue custody orders. But the Uniform Law Conference 
has approved two uniform acts that have effectively minimized the problem of 
multiple court jurisdiction in child custody matters; the Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), approved in 1968, succeeded by the Uniform Child 
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), approved in 1997. The 
drafters of the UAGPPJA have elected to model Article 2 and portions of Article 1 
of their Act after these child custody analogues. However, the UAGPPJA applies 
only to adult proceedings. The UAGPPJA is limited to adults in part because most 
jurisdictional issues involving guardianships for minors are subsumed by the 
UCCJEA.  
The Objectives and Key Concepts of the Proposed UAGPPJA  
            The UAGPPJA is organized into five articles. Article 1 contains 
definitions and provisions designed to facilitate cooperation between courts in 
different states. Article 2 is the heart of the Act, specifying which court has 
jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or conservator or issue another type of protective 
order and contains definitions applicable only to that article. Its principal objective 
is to assure that an appointment or order is made or issued in only one state except 
in cases of emergency or in situations where the individual owns property located 
in multiple states. Article 3 specifies a procedure for transferring a guardianship or 
conservatorship proceedings from one state to another state. Article 4 deals with 
enforcement of guardianship and protective orders in other states. Article 5 
contains an effective date provision, a place to list provisions of existing law to be 
repealed or amended, and boilerplate provisions common to all uniform acts.  
Key Definitions (Section 201) 
            To determine which court has primary jurisdiction under the UAGPPJA, 
the key factors are to determine the individual's "home state" and "significant-
connection state." A "home state" (Section 201(a)(2)) is the state in which the 
individual was physically present, including any period of temporary absence, for 
at least six consecutive months immediately before the filing of a petition for a 
protective order or appointment of a guardian. If the respondent was not 
physically present in a single state for the six months immediately preceding the 
filing of the petition, the home state is the place where the respondent was last 
physically present for at least six months as long as such presence ended within 
the six months prior to the filing of the petition. Section 201(a)(2). Stated another 
way, the ability of the home state to appoint a guardian or enter a protective order 
for an individual continues for up to six months following the individual's physical 
relocation to another state. 
            A "significant-connection state," which is a potentially broader concept, 
means the state in which the individual has a significant connection other than 
mere physical presence, and where substantial evidence concerning the individual 
is available. Section 201(a)(3). Factors that may be considered in deciding 
whether a particular respondent has a significant connection include: 
• 
the location of the respondent's family and others required to be notified of 
the guardianship or protective proceeding;  
• 
the length of time the respondent was at any time physically present in the 
state and the duration of any absences; 
• 
the location of the respondent's property; and 
• 
the extent to which the respondent has other ties to the state such as voting 
registration, filing of state or local tax returns, vehicle registration, driver's 
license, social relationships, and receipt of services. Section 201(b). 
            A respondent in a guardianship or protective proceeding may have 
multiple significant-connection states but will have only one home state. 
Jurisdiction (Article 2) 
            Section 203 is the principal provision governing jurisdiction, creating a 
three-level priority; the home state, followed by a significant-connection state, 
followed by other jurisdictions: 
• 
Home State: The home state has primary jurisdiction to appoint a guardian 
or conservator or issue another type of protective order. 
• 
Significant-connection State: A significant-connection state has 
jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or conservator or issue another type of 
protective order if on the date the petition was filed: 
      • 
the respondent does not have a home state or the home state has 
declined jurisdiction on the basis that the significant-connection 
state is a more appropriate forum; or 
            •    the respondent has a home state, a petition for an appointment or 
order is not pending in a court of that state or another significant-
connection state, and, before the court makes the appointment or 
issues the order (i) a petition for an appointment or order is not 
filed in the respondent's home state; (ii) an objection to the court's 
jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be notified of the 
proceeding; and (iii) the court in this state concludes that it is an 
appropriate forum under the factors set forth in Section 206.  
• 
Another State: A court in another state has jurisdiction if the home state 
and all significant-connection states have declined jurisdiction because the 
court in the other state is a more appropriate forum, or the respondent does 
not have a home state or significant-connection state. 
            Section 204 addresses special cases. Regardless of whether it has 
jurisdiction under the general principles stated in Section 203, a court in the state 
where the respondent is currently physically present has jurisdiction to appoint a 
guardian in an emergency, and a court in a state where a respondent's real or 
tangible personal property is located has jurisdiction to appoint a conservator or 
issue another type of protective order with respect to that property. In addition, a 
court not otherwise having jurisdiction under Section 203 has jurisdiction to 
consider a petition to accept the transfer of an already existing guardianship or 
conservatorship from another state as provided in Article 3.  
            The remainder of Article 2 elaborates on these core concepts. Section 205 
provides that once a guardian or conservator is appointed or other protective order 
is issued, the court's jurisdiction continues until the proceeding is terminated or 
transferred or the appointment or order expires by its own terms. Section 206 
authorizes a court to decline jurisdiction if it determines that the court of another 
state is a more appropriate forum, and specifies the factors to be taken into account 
in making this determination. Section 207 authorizes a court to decline jurisdiction 
or fashion another appropriate remedy if jurisdiction was acquired because of 
unjustifiable conduct. Section 208 prescribes additional notice requirements if a 
proceeding is brought in a state other than the respondent's home state. Section 
specifies a procedure for resolving jurisdictional issues if petitions are 
pending in more than one state. The UAGPPJA also includes provisions regarding 
communication between courts in different states, requests for assistance made by 
a court to a court of another state, and the taking of testimony in another state. 
Sections 104-106. 
Transfer to Another State (Article 3) 
            Article 3 specifies a procedure for transferring an already existing 
guardianship or conservatorship to another state. To make the transfer, court 
orders are necessary from both the court transferring the case and from the court 
accepting the case. The transferring court must find that the incapacitated or 
protected person is physically present in or is reasonably expected to move 
permanently to the other state, that adequate arrangements have been made for the 
person or the person's property in the other state, and that the court is satisfied the 
case will be accepted by the court in the other state. To assure continuity, the court 
in the transferring state cannot dismiss the local proceeding until the order from 
the state accepting the case is filed with the transferring court. To expedite the 
transfer process, the court in the accepting state must give deference to the 
transferring court's finding of incapacity and selection of the guardian or 
conservator. Much of Article 3 is based on the pioneering work of the National 
Probate Court Standards, a 1993 joint project of the National College of Probate 
Judges and the National Center for State Courts.  
Out of State Enforcement (Article 4) 
            To facilitate enforcement of guardianship and protective orders in other 
states, Article 4 authorizes a guardian or conservator to register these orders in 
other states. Upon registration, the guardian or conservator may exercise in the 
registration state all powers authorized in the order except as prohibited by the 
laws of the registration state. 
International Application (Section 103) 
            Section 103 addresses application of the Act to guardianship and protective 
orders issued in other countries. A foreign order is not enforceable pursuant to the 
registration procedures under Article 4, but a court in the United States may 
otherwise apply the Act as if the foreign country were an American state.  
The Problem of Differing Terminology  
            States differ on terminology for the person appointed by the court to 
handle the personal and financial affairs of a minor or incapacitated adult. Under 
the UGPPA and in a majority of American states, a "guardian" is appointed to 
make decisions regarding the person of an "incapacitated person;" a "conservator" 
is appointed in a "protective proceeding" to manage the property of a "protected 
person." But in many states, only a "guardian" is appointed, either a guardian of 
the person or guardian of the estate, and in a few states, the terms guardian and 
conservator are used but with different meanings. The UAGPPJA adopts the 
terminology used in the UGPPA and in a majority of the states. An enacting state 
that uses a different term than "guardian" or "conservator" for the person 
appointed by the court or that defines either of these terms differently than does 
the UGPPA may, but is not encouraged to, substitute its own term or definition. 
Use of common terms and definitions by states enacting the Act will facilitate 
resolution of cases involving multiple jurisdictions.  
            The Drafting Committee was assisted by numerous officially 
designated advisors and observers, representing an array of organizations. In 
addition to the American Bar Association advisors listed above, important 
contributions were made by Sally Hurme of AARP, Terry W. Hammond of the 
National Guardianship Association, Kathleen T. Whitehead and Shirley B. 
Whitenack of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Catherine Anne 
Seal of the Colorado Bar Association, Kay Farley of the National Center for State 
Courts, and Robert G. Spector, the Reporter for the Joint Editorial Board for 
Uniform Family Laws and the Reporter for the Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). 
PART 5-A 
UNIFORM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS 
JURISDICTION ACT 
SUBPART 1 
GENERAL PROVISIONS 
General Comment 
       Article 1 contains definitions and general provisions used throughout the 
Act. Definitions applicable only to Article 2 are found in Section 201. Section 101 
is the title, Section 102 contains the definitions, and Sections 103-106 the general 
provisions. Section 103 provides that a court of an enacting state may treat a 
foreign country as a state for the purpose of applying all portions of the Act other 
than Article 4, Section 104 addresses communication between courts, Section 105 
requests by a court to a court in another state for assistance, and Section 106 the 
taking of testimony in other states. These Article 1 provisions relating to court 
communication and assistance are essential tools to assure the effectiveness of the 
provisions of Article 2 determining jurisdiction and in facilitating transfer of a 
proceeding to another state as authorized in Article 3. 
§5-511.  Short title 
This Part may be known and cited as "the Uniform Adult Guardianship and 
Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act." 
Comment 
(This is Section 101 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            The title to the Act succinctly describes the Act's scope. The Act applies 
only to court jurisdiction and related topics for adults for whom the appointment 
of a guardian or conservator or other protective order is being sought or has been 
issued. 
      The drafting committee elected to limit the Act to adults for two reasons. 
First, jurisdictional issues concerning guardians for minors are subsumed by the 
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). Second, while 
the UCCJEA does not address conservatorship and other issues involving the 
property of minors, all of the problems and concerns that led the Uniform Law 
Commission to appoint a drafting committee involved adults. 
§5-512.  Definitions 
As used in this Part, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have 
the following meanings. 
(a).  "Adult" means an individual who has attained 18 years of age. 
(b).  "Conservator" means a person appointed by the court to administer the property 
of an adult, including a person appointed under Part 4. 
(c).  "Guardian" means a person appointed by the court to make decisions regarding 
the person of an adult, including a person appointed under Part 3. 
(d).  "Guardianship order" means an order appointing a guardian. 
(e).  "Guardianship proceeding" means a judicial proceeding in which an order for the 
appointment of a guardian is sought or has been issued. 
(f).  "Incapacitated person" means an adult for whom a guardian has been appointed. 
(g).  "Party" means the respondent, petitioner, guardian, conservator or any other 
person allowed by the court to participate in a guardianship or protective proceeding. 
(h).  "Person," except in the term "incapacitated person" or "protected person," 
means: an individual; corporation; business trust; estate; trust; partnership; limited 
liability company; association; joint venture; public corporation; government or 
governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality; or any other legal or commercial 
entity. 
(i).  "Protected person" means an adult for whom a protective order has been issued. 
(j).  "Protective order" means an order appointing a conservator or other order related 
to management of an adult's property. 
(k).  "Protective proceeding" means a judicial proceeding in which a protective order 
is sought or has been issued. 
(l).  "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is 
stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. 
(m).  "Respondent" means an adult for whom a protective order or the appointment of 
a guardian is sought. 
(n).  "State" means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
the United States Virgin Islands, a federally recognized Indian tribe or any territory or 
insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 
Comment 
(This is Section 102 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            The definition of "adult" (paragraph (1)) would exclude an emancipated 
minor. The Act is not designed to supplant the local substantive law on 
guardianship. States whose guardianship law treats emancipated minors as adults 
may wish to modify this definition.  
            Three of the other definitions are standard uniform law terms. These are 
the definitions of "person" (paragraph (8)), "record" (paragraph (12)), and "state" 
(paragraph (14)). Two are common procedural terms. The individual for whom a 
guardianship or protective order is sought is a "respondent" (paragraph (13)). A 
person who may participate in a guardianship or protective proceeding is referred 
to as a "party" (paragraph (7)). 
            The remaining definitions refer to standard guardianship terminology used 
in a majority of states. A "guardian" (paragraph (3)) is appointed in a 
"guardianship order" (paragraph (4)) which is issued as part of a "guardianship 
proceeding" (paragraph (5)) and which authorizes the guardian to make decisions 
regarding the person of an "incapacitated person" (paragraph (6)). A "conservator" 
(paragraph (2)) is appointed pursuant to a "protective order" (paragraph (10)) 
which is issued as part of a "protective proceeding" (paragraph (11)) and which 
authorizes the conservator to manage the property of a "protected person" 
(paragraph (9)). 
            In most states, a protective order may be issued by the court without the 
appointment of a conservator. For example, under the Uniform Guardianship and 
Protective Proceedings Act, the court may authorize a so-called single transaction 
for the security, service, or care meeting the foreseeable needs of the protected 
person, including the payment, delivery, deposit, or retention of property; sale, 
mortgage, lease, or other transfer of property; purchase of an annuity; making a 
contract for life care, deposit contract, or contract for training and education; and 
the creation of or addition to a suitable trust. UGPPA (1997) §412(1). It is for this 
reason that the Act contains frequent references to the broader category of 
protective orders. Where the Act is intended to apply only to conservatorships, 
such as in Article 3 dealing with transfers of proceedings to other states, the Act 
refers to conservatorship and not to the broader category of protective proceeding.  
            The Act does not limit the types of conservatorships or guardianships to 
which the Act applies. The Act applies whether the conservatorship or 
guardianship is denominated as plenary, limited, temporary or emergency. The 
Act, however, would not ordinarily apply to a guardian ad litem, who is ordinarily 
appointed by the court to represent a person or conduct an investigation in a 
specified legal proceeding. 
            Section 102 is not the sole definitional section in the Act. Section 201 
contains definitions of important terms used only in Article 2. These are the 
definitions of "emergency" (Section 201(1)), "home state" (Section 201(2)), and 
"significant-connection state" (Section 201(3)). 
§5-513.  International application of Part 
A court of this State may treat a foreign country as if it were a state for the purpose of 
applying this subpart and subparts 2, 3 and 5. 
Comment 
(This is Section 103 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This section addresses application of the Act to guardianship and 
protective orders issued in other countries. A foreign order is not enforceable 
pursuant to the registration procedures of Article 4, but a court in this country may 
otherwise apply this Act to a foreign proceeding as if the foreign country were an 
American state. Consequently, a court may conclude that the court in the foreign 
country has jurisdiction because it constitutes the respondent's "home state" or 
"significant-connection state" and may therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction on 
the ground that the court of the foreign country has a higher priority under Section 
203. Or the court may treat the foreign country as if it were a state of the United 
States for purposes of applying the transfer provisions of Article 3.  
            This section addresses similar issues to but differs in result from Section 
of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). 
Under the UCCJEA, the United States court must honor a custody order issued by 
the court of a foreign country if the order was issued under factual circumstances 
in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of the UCCJEA. Only if 
the child custody law violates fundamental principles of human rights is 
enforcement excused. Because guardianship regimes vary so greatly around the 
world, particularly in civil law countries, it was concluded that under this Act a 
more flexible approach was needed. Under this Act, a court may but is not 
required to recognize the foreign order.  
            The fact that a guardianship or protective order of a foreign country cannot 
be enforced pursuant to the registration procedures of Article 4 does not preclude 
enforcement by the court under some other provision or rule of law. 
§5-514.  Communication between courts 
(a).  A court of this State may communicate with a court in another state concerning a 
proceeding arising under this Part. The court may allow the parties to participate in the 
communication. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), the court shall make a 
record of the communication. The record may be limited to the fact that the 
communication occurred. 
(b).  Courts may communicate concerning schedules, calendars, court records and 
other administrative matters without making a record. 
Comment 
(This is Section 104 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This section emphasizes the importance of communications among courts 
with an interest in a particular matter. Most commonly, this would include 
communication between courts of different states to resolve an issue of which 
court has jurisdiction to proceed under Article 2. It would also include 
communication between courts of different states to facilitate the transfer of a 
guardianship or conservatorship to a different state under Article 3. 
Communication can occur in a variety of ways, including by electronic means. 
This section does not prescribe the use of any particular means of communication.  
            The court may authorize the parties to participate in the communication. 
But the Act does not mandate participation or require that the court give the 
parties notice of any communication. Communication between courts is often 
difficult to schedule and participation by the parties may be impractical. Phone 
calls or electronic communications often have to be made after-hours or whenever 
the schedules of judges allow. When issuing a jurisdictional or transfer order, the 
court should set forth the extent to which a communication with another court may 
have been a factor in the decision. 
            This section includes brackets around the language relating to whether a 
record must be made of any communication with the court of the other state. As 
indicated by the Legislative Note to this section, the language is bracketed because 
of a concern in some states that a legislative enactment directing when a court 
must make a record in a judicial proceeding may violate the doctrine on separation 
of powers. The language is not bracketed because the drafters concluded that the 
making of a record is not important. Rather, if concerns about separation of 
powers lead to the deletion of the bracketed language, the enacting state is 
encouraged to achieve the objectives of the bracketed language by promulgating a 
comparable provision by judicial rule.  
            This section does not prescribe the extent of the record that the court must 
make, leaving that issue to the court. A record might include notes or transcripts of 
a court reporter who listened to a conference call between the courts, an electronic 
recording of a telephone call, a memorandum summarizing a conversation, and 
email communications. No record need be made of relatively inconsequential 
matters such as scheduling, calendars, and court records.  
            Section 110 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
Act (1997) addresses similar issues as this section but is more detailed. As is the 
case with several other provisions of this Act, the drafters of this Act concluded 
that the more varied circumstances of adult guardianship and protective 
proceedings suggested a need for greater flexibility. 
§5-515.  Cooperation between courts 
(a).  In a guardianship or protective proceeding in this State, a court of this State may 
request the appropriate court of another state to do any of the following: 
(1).  Hold an evidentiary hearing; 
(2).  Order a person in that state to produce evidence or give testimony pursuant to 
procedures of that state; 
(3).  Order that an evaluation or assessment be made of the respondent; 
(4).  Order any appropriate investigation of a person involved in a proceeding; 
(5).  Forward to the court of this State a certified copy of the transcript or other record 
of a hearing under paragraph (1) or any other proceeding, any evidence otherwise 
produced under paragraph (2) and any evaluation or assessment prepared in 
compliance with an order under paragraph (3) or (4); 
(6).  Issue any order necessary to ensure the appearance in the proceeding of a person 
whose presence is necessary for the court to make a determination, including the 
respondent or the incapacitated person or protected person; 
(7).  Issue an order authorizing the release of medical, financial, criminal or other 
relevant information in that state, including protected health information as defined in 
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 160.103, as amended. 
(b).  If a court of another state in which a guardianship or protective proceeding is 
pending requests assistance of the kind provided in subsection (a), a court of this State 
has jurisdiction for the limited purpose of granting the request or making reasonable 
efforts to comply with the request. 
Comment 
(This is Section 105 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            Subsection (a) of this section is similar to Section 112(a) of the Uniform 
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997), although modified to 
address issues of concern in adult guardianship and protective proceedings and 
with the addition of subsection (a)(7), which addresses the release of health 
information protected under HIPAA. Subsection (b), which clarifies that a court 
has jurisdiction to respond to requests for assistance from courts in other states 
even though it might otherwise not have jurisdiction over the proceeding, is not 
found in although probably implicit in the UCCJEA.  
            Court cooperation is essential to the success of this Act. This section is 
designed to facilitate such court cooperation. It provides mechanisms for courts to 
cooperate with each other in order to decide cases in an efficient manner without 
causing undue expense to the parties. Courts may request assistance from courts of 
other states and may assist courts of other states. Typically, such assistance will be 
requested to resolve a jurisdictional issue arising under Article 2 or an issue 
concerning a transfer proceeding under Article 3.  
            This section does not address assessment of costs and expenses, leaving 
that issue to local law. Should a court have acquired jurisdiction because of a 
party's unjustifiable conduct, Section 207(b) authorizes the court to assess against 
the party all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. 
§5-516.  Taking testimony in another state 
(a).  In a guardianship or protective proceeding, in addition to other procedures that 
may be available, testimony of a witness who is located in another state may be offered 
by deposition or other means allowable in this State for testimony taken in another state. 
The court on its own motion may order that the testimony of a witness be taken in another 
state and may prescribe the manner in which and the terms upon which the testimony is to 
be taken. 
(b).  In a guardianship or protective proceeding, a court in this State may permit a 
witness located in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone or audiovisual or 
other electronic means. A court of this State shall cooperate with the court of the other 
state in designating an appropriate location for the deposition or testimony. 
(c).  Documentary evidence transmitted from another state to a court of this State by 
technological means that do not produce an original writing may not be excluded from 
evidence on an objection based on the best evidence rule. 
Comment 
(This is Section 106 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This section is similar to Section 111 of the Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). That section was in turn derived from 
Section 316 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (1992) and the much 
earlier and now otherwise obsolete Uniform Interstate and International Procedure 
Act (1962).  
            This section is designed to fill the vacuum that often exists in cases 
involving an adult with interstate contacts when much of the essential information 
about the individual is located in another state.  
            Subsection (a) empowers the court to initiate the gathering of out-of-state 
evidence, including depositions, written interrogatories and other discovery 
devices. The authority granted to the court in no way precludes the gathering of 
out-of-state evidence by a party, including the taking of depositions out-of-state.  
            Subsections (b) and (c) clarify that modern modes of communication are 
permissible for the taking of depositions and receipt of documents into evidence. 
A state that has adequate exceptions to its best evidence rule to permit the 
introduction of evidence transmitted by facsimile or in electronic form should 
delete subsection (c), which has been placed in brackets for this reason. 
            This section is consistent with and complementary to the Uniform 
Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (2007), which specifies the procedure 
for taking depositions in other states. 
SUBPART 2 
JURISDICTION 
General Comment 
            The jurisdictional rules in Article 2 will determine which state's courts may 
appoint a guardian or conservator or issue another type of protective order. Section 
contains definitions of "emergency," "home state," and "significant-
connection state," terms used only in Article 2 that are key to understanding the 
jurisdictional rules under the Act. Section 202 provides that Article 2 is the 
exclusive jurisdictional basis for a court of the enacting state to appoint a guardian 
or issue a protective order for an adult. Consequently, Article 2 is applicable even 
if all of the respondent's significant contacts are in-state. Section 203 is the 
principal provision governing jurisdiction, creating a three-level priority; the home 
state, followed by a significant-connection state, followed by other jurisdictions. 
But there are circumstances under Section 203 where a significant-connection 
state may have jurisdiction even if the respondent also has a home state, or a state 
that is neither a home or significant-connection state may be able to assume 
jurisdiction even though the particular respondent has both a home state and one 
or more significant-connection states. One of these situations is if a state declines 
to exercise jurisdiction under Section 206 because a court of that state concludes 
that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Another is Section 207, 
which authorizes a court to decline jurisdiction or fashion another appropriate 
remedy if jurisdiction was acquired because of unjustifiable conduct. Section 205 
provides that once an appointment is made or order issued, the court's jurisdiction 
continues until the proceeding is terminated or the appointment or order expires by 
its own terms.  
            Section 204 addresses special cases. Regardless of whether it has 
jurisdiction under the general principles stated in Section 203, a court in the state 
where the individual is currently physically present has jurisdiction to appoint a 
guardian in an emergency, and a court in a state where an individual's real or 
tangible personal property is located has jurisdiction to appoint a conservator or 
issue another type of protective order with respect to that property. In addition, a 
court not otherwise having jurisdiction under Section 203 has jurisdiction to 
consider a petition to accept the transfer of an already existing guardianship or 
conservatorship from another state as provided in Article 3.  
            The remainder of Article 2 addresses procedural issues. Section 208 
prescribes additional notice requirements if a proceeding is brought in a state other 
than the respondent's home state. Section 209 specifies a procedure for resolving 
jurisdictional issues if petitions are pending in more than one state. 
§5-521.  Definitions; significant connection factors 
(a).  As used in this subpart, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following 
terms have the following meanings. 
(1).  "Emergency" means a circumstance that likely will result in substantial harm to 
a respondent's health, safety or welfare, and for which the appointment of a guardian 
is necessary because no other person has authority and is willing to act on the 
respondent's behalf. 
(2).  "Home state" means the state in which the respondent was physically present, 
including any period of temporary absence, for at least 6 consecutive months 
immediately before the filing of a petition for a protective order or the appointment of 
a guardian or, if none, the state in which the respondent was physically present, 
including any period of temporary absence, for at least 6 consecutive months ending 
within the 6 months prior to the filing of the petition. 
(3).  "Significant-connection state" means a state, other than the home state, with 
which a respondent has a significant connection other than mere physical presence 
and in which substantial evidence concerning the respondent is available. 
(b).  In determining under section 5-523 and section 5-531, subsection (e) whether a 
respondent has a significant connection with a particular state, the court shall consider: 
(1).  The location of the respondent's family and other persons required to be notified 
of the guardianship or protective proceeding; 
(2).  The length of time the respondent at any time was physically present in the state 
and the duration of any absence; 
(3).  The location of the respondent's property; and 
(4).  The extent to which the respondent has ties to the state such as voting 
registration, state or local tax return filing, vehicle registration, driver's license, social 
relationship and receipt of services. 
Comment 
(This is Section 201 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            The terms "emergency," "home state," and "significant-connection state" 
are defined in this section and not in Section 102 because they are used only in 
Article 2.  
            The definition of "emergency" (subsection (a)(1)) is taken from the 
emergency guardianship provision of the Uniform Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Act (1997), Section 312.  
            Pursuant to Section 204 of this Act, a court has jurisdiction to appoint a 
guardian in an emergency for a period of up to 90 days even though it does not 
otherwise have jurisdiction. However, the emergency appointment is subject to the 
direction of the court in the respondent's home state. Pursuant to Section 204(b), 
the emergency proceeding must be dismissed at the request of the court in the 
respondent's home state. 
            Appointing a guardian in an emergency should be an unusual event. 
Although most states have emergency guardianship statutes, not all states do, and 
in those states that do have such statutes, there is great variation on whether and 
how an emergency is defined. To provide some uniformity on when a court 
acquires emergency jurisdiction, the drafters of this Act concluded that adding a 
definition of emergency was essential. The definition does not preclude an 
enacting jurisdiction from appointing a guardian under an emergency guardianship 
statute with a different or broader test of emergency if the court otherwise has 
jurisdiction to make an appointment under Section 203.  
            Pursuant to Section 203, a court in the respondent's home state has primary 
jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order. A court in a 
significant-connection state has jurisdiction if the respondent does not have a 
home state and in other circumstances specified in Section 203. The definitions of 
"home state" and "significant-connection state" are therefore important to an 
understanding of the Act. 
            The definition of "home state" (subsection (a)(2)) is derived from but 
differs in a couple of respects from the definition of the same term in Section 102 
of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). First, 
unlike the definition in the UCCJEA, the definition in this Act clarifies that actual 
physical presence is necessary. The UCCJEA definition instead focuses on where 
the child has "lived" for the prior six months. Basing the test on where someone 
has "lived" may imply that the term "home state" is similar to the concept of 
domicile. Domicile, in an adult guardianship context, is a vague concept that can 
easily lead to claims of jurisdiction by courts in more than one state. Second, 
under the UCCJEA, home state jurisdiction continues for six months following 
physical removal from the state and the state has ceased to be the actual home. 
Under this Act, the six-month tail is incorporated directly into the definition of 
home state. The place where the respondent was last physically present for six 
months continues as the home state for six months following physical removal 
from the state. This modification of the UCCJEA definition eliminates the need to 
refer to the six-month tail each time home state jurisdiction is mentioned in the 
Act.  
            The definition of "significant-connection state" (subsection (a)(3)) is 
similar to Section 201(a)(2) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Act (1997). However, subsection (b) of this Section adds a list of 
factors relevant to adult guardianship and protective proceedings to aid the court 
in deciding whether a particular place is a significant-connection state. Under 
Section 301(e)(1), the significant connection factors listed in the definition are to 
be taken into account in determining whether a conservatorship may be transferred 
to another state. 
§5-522.  Exclusive basis 
This subpart provides the exclusive jurisdictional basis for a court of this State to 
appoint a guardian or issue a protective order for an adult. 
Comment 
(This is Section 202 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            Similar to Section 201(b) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Act (1997), which provides that the UCCJEA is the exclusive basis 
for determining jurisdiction to issue a child custody order, this section provides 
that this article is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for determining jurisdiction to 
appoint a guardian or issue a protective order for an adult. An enacting jurisdiction 
will therefore need to repeal any existing provisions addressing jurisdiction in 
guardianship and protective proceedings cases. A Legislative Note to Section 503 
provides guidance on which provisions need to be repealed or amended. The 
drafters of this Act concluded that limiting the Act to "interstate" cases was 
unworkable. Such cases are hard to define, but even if they could be defined, 
overlaying this Act onto a state's existing jurisdictional rules would leave too 
many gaps and inconsistencies. In addition, if the particular case is truly local, the 
local court would likely have jurisdiction under both this Act as well as under 
prior law. 
§5-523.  Jurisdiction 
A court of this State has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order 
for a respondent if: 
(a).  This State is the respondent's home state; 
(b).  On the date the petition is filed, this State is a significant-connection state and: 
(1).  The respondent does not have a home state or a court of the respondent's home 
state has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this State is a more appropriate 
forum; 
(2).  The respondent has a home state, a petition for an appointment or order is not 
pending in a court of that state or another significant-connection state and, before the 
court makes the appointment or issues the order: 
(i)  A petition for an appointment or order is not filed in the respondent's home 
state; 
(ii)  An objection to the court's jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be 
notified of the proceeding; and 
(iii)  The court in this State concludes that it is an appropriate forum under the 
factors set forth in section 5-526; 
(3).  This State does not have jurisdiction under either paragraph (1) or (2), the 
respondent's home state and all significant-connection states have declined to 
exercise jurisdiction because this State is the more appropriate forum and jurisdiction 
in this State is consistent with the constitutions of this State and the United States; or 
(4).  The requirements for special jurisdiction under section 5-524 are met. 
Comment 
(This is Section 203 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            Similar to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 
(1997), this Act creates a three-level priority for determining which state has 
jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order; the home state 
(defined in Section 201(a)(2)), followed by a significant-connection state (defined 
in Section 201(a)(3)), followed by other jurisdictions. The principal objective of 
this section is to eliminate the possibility of dual appointments or orders except for 
the special circumstances specified in Section 204. 
            While this section is the principal provision for determining whether a 
particular court has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order, it 
is not the only provision. As indicated in the cross-reference in Section 203(4), a 
court that does not otherwise have jurisdiction under Section 203 may have 
jurisdiction under the special circumstances specified in Section 204.  
            Pursuant to Section 203(1), the home state has primary jurisdiction to 
appoint a guardian or conservator or issue another type of protective order. This 
jurisdiction terminates if the state ceases to be the home state, if a court of the 
home state declines to exercise jurisdiction under Section 206 on the basis that 
another state is a more appropriate forum, or, as provided in Section 205, a court 
of another state has appointed a guardian or issued a protective order consistent 
with this Act. The standards by which a home state that has enacted the Act may 
decline jurisdiction on the basis that another state is a more appropriate forum are 
specified in Section 206. Should the home state not have enacted the Act, Section 
203(1) does not require that the declination meet the standards of Section 206. 
            Once a petition is filed in a court of the respondent's home state, that state 
does not cease to be the respondent's home state upon the passage of time even 
though it may be many months before an appointment is made or order issued and 
during that period the respondent is physically located. Only upon dismissal of the 
petition can the court cease to be the home state due to the passage of time. Under 
the definition of "home state," the six-month physical presence requirement is 
fulfilled or not on the date the petition is filed. See Section 201(a)(2). 
            A significant-connection state has jurisdiction under two possible bases; 
Section 203(2)(A) and Section 203(2)(B). Under Section 203(2)(A), a significant-
connection state has jurisdiction if the individual does not have a home state or if 
the home state has declined jurisdiction on the basis that the significant-
connection state is a more appropriate forum.  
            Section 203(2)(B) is designed to facilitate consideration of cases where 
jurisdiction is not in dispute. Section 203(2)(B) allows a court in a significant-
connection state to exercise jurisdiction even though the respondent has a home 
state and the home state has not declined jurisdiction. The significant-connection 
state may assume jurisdiction under these circumstances, however, only in 
situations where the parties are not in disagreement concerning which court should 
hear the case. Jurisdiction may not be exercised by a significant-connection state 
under Section 203(2)(B) if (1) a petition has already been filed and is still pending 
in the home state or other significant-connection state; or (2) prior to making the 
appointment or issuing the order, a petition is filed in the respondent's home state 
or an objection to the court's jurisdiction is filed by a person required to be 
notified of the proceeding. Additionally, the court in the significant-connection 
state must conclude that it is an appropriate forum applying the factors listed in 
Section 206.  
            There is nothing comparable to Section 203(2)(B) in the Uniform Child 
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). Under Section 201 of the 
UCCJEA a court in a significant-connection state acquires jurisdiction only if the 
child does not have a home state or the court of that state has declined jurisdiction. 
The drafters of this Act concluded that cases involving adults differed sufficiently 
from child custody matters that a different rule is appropriate for adult proceedings 
in situations where jurisdiction is uncontested. 
            Pursuant to Section 203(3), a court in a state that is neither the home state 
or a significant-connection state has jurisdiction if the home state and all 
significant-connection states have declined jurisdiction or the respondent does not 
have a home state or significant-connection state. The state must have some 
connection with the proceeding, however. As Section 203(a)(3) clarifies, 
jurisdiction in the state must be consistent with the state and United States 
constitutions. 
§5-524.  Special jurisdiction 
(a).  A court of this State lacking jurisdiction under section 5-523, subsections (a) to 
(c) has special jurisdiction to do any of the following: 
(1).  Appoint a guardian in an emergency for a term not exceeding 90 days for a 
respondent who is physically present in this State; 
(2).  Issue a protective order with respect to real or tangible personal property located 
in this State; or 
(3).  Appoint a guardian or conservator for an incapacitated person or protected 
person for whom a provisional order to transfer the proceeding from another state has 
been issued under procedures similar to section 5-531. 
(b).  If a petition for the appointment of a guardian in an emergency is brought in this 
State and this State was not the respondent's home state on the date the petition was filed, 
the court shall dismiss the proceeding at the request of the court of the home state, if any, 
whether dismissal is requested before or after the emergency appointment. 
Comment 
(This is Section 204 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This section lists the special circumstances where a court without 
jurisdiction under the general rule of Section 203 has jurisdiction for limited 
purposes. The three purposes are (1) the appointment of a guardian in an 
emergency for a term not exceeding 90 days for a respondent who is physically 
located in the state (subsection (a)(1)); (2) the issuance of a protective order for a 
respondent who owns an interest in real or tangible personal property located in 
the state (subsection (a)(2)); and (3) the grant of jurisdiction to consider a petition 
requesting the transfer of a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding from 
another state (subsection (a)(3)). If the court has jurisdiction under Section 203, 
reference to Section 204 is unnecessary. The general jurisdiction granted under 
Section 203 includes within it all of the special circumstances specified in this 
section.  
            When an emergency arises, action must often be taken on the spot in the 
place where the respondent happens to be physically located at the time. This 
place may not necessarily be located in the respondent's home state or even a 
significant-connection state. Subsection (a)(1) assures that the court where the 
respondent happens to be physically located at the time has jurisdiction to appoint 
a guardian in an emergency but only for a limited period of 90 days. The time 
limit is placed in brackets to signal that enacting states may substitute the time 
period under their existing emergency guardianship procedures. As provided in 
subsection (b), the emergency jurisdiction is also subject to the authority of the 
court in the respondent's home state to request that the emergency proceeding be 
dismissed. The theory here is that the emergency appointment in the temporary 
location should not be converted into a de facto permanent appointment through 
repeated temporary appointments.  
            "Emergency" is specifically defined in Section 201(a)(1). Because of the 
great variation among the states on how an emergency is defined and its important 
role in conferring jurisdiction, the drafters of this Act concluded that adding a 
uniform definition of emergency was essential. The definition does not preclude 
an enacting jurisdiction from appointing a guardian under an emergency 
guardianship statute with a different or broader test of emergency if the court 
otherwise has jurisdiction to make an appointment under Section 203.  
            Subsection (a)(2) grants a court jurisdiction to issue a protective order with 
respect to real and tangible personal property located in the state even though the 
court does not otherwise have jurisdiction. Such orders are most commonly issued 
when a conservator has been appointed but the protected person owns real 
property located in another state. The drafters specifically rejected using a general 
reference to any property located in the state because of the tendency of some 
courts to issue protective orders with respect to intangible personal property such 
as a bank account where the technical situs of the asset may have little relationship 
to the protected person. 
            Subsection (a)(3) is closely related to and is necessary for the effectiveness 
of Article 3, which addresses transfer of a guardianship or conservatorship to 
another state. A "Catch-22" arises frequently in such cases. The court in the 
transferring state will not allow the incapacitated or protected person to move and 
will not terminate the case until the court in the transferee state has accepted the 
matter. But the court in the transferee state will not accept the case until the 
incapacitated or protected person has physically moved and presumably become a 
resident of the transferee state. Subsection (a)(3), which grants the court in the 
transferee state limited jurisdiction to consider a petition requesting transfer of a 
proceeding from another state, is intended to unlock the stalemate. 
            Not included in this section but a provision also conferring special 
jurisdiction on the court is Section 105(b), which grants the court jurisdiction to 
respond to a request for assistance from a court of another state. 
§5-525.  Exclusive and continuing jurisdiction 
Except as otherwise provided in section 5-524, a court that has appointed a guardian 
or issued a protective order consistent with this Part has exclusive and continuing 
jurisdiction over the proceeding until it is terminated by the court or the appointment or 
order expires by its own terms. 
Comment 
(This is Section 205 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            While this Act relies heavily on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction 
and Enforcement Act (1997) for many basic concepts, the identity is not absolute. 
Section 202 of the UCCJEA specifies a variety of circumstances whereby a court 
can lose jurisdiction based on loss of physical presence by the child and others, 
loss of a significant connection, or unavailability of substantial evidence. Section 
of the UCCJEA addresses the jurisdiction of the court to modify a custody 
determination made in another state. Nothing comparable to either UCCJEA 
section is found in this Act. Under this Act, a guardianship or protective order may 
be modified only upon request to the court that made the appointment or issued 
the order, which retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the proceeding. 
Unlike child custody matters, guardianships and protective proceedings are 
ordinarily subject to continuing court supervision. Allowing the court's jurisdiction 
to terminate other than by its own order would open the possibility of competing 
guardianship or conservatorship appointments in different states for the same 
person at the same time, the problem under current law that enactment of this Act 
is designed to avoid. Should the incapacitated or protected person and others with 
an interest in the proceeding relocate to a different state, the appropriate remedy is 
to seek transfer of the proceeding to the other state as provided in Article 3.  
            The exclusive and continuing jurisdiction conferred by this section only 
applies to guardianship orders made and protective orders issued under Section 
203. Orders made under the special jurisdiction conferred by Section 204 are not 
exclusive. And as provided in Section 204(b), the jurisdiction of a court in a state 
other than the home state to appoint a guardian in an emergency is subject to the 
right of a court in the home state to request that the proceeding be dismissed and 
any appointment terminated. 
            Article 3 authorizes a guardian or conservator to petition to transfer the 
proceeding to another state. Upon the conclusion of the transfer, the court in the 
accepting state will appoint the guardian or conservator as guardian or conservator 
in the accepting state and the court in the transferring state will terminate the local 
proceeding, whereupon the jurisdiction of the transferring court terminates and the 
court in the accepting state acquires exclusive and continuing jurisdiction as 
provided in Section 205. 
§5-526.  Appropriate forum 
(a).  A court of this State having jurisdiction under section 5-523 to appoint a 
guardian or issue a protective order may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it 
determines at any time that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. 
(b).  If a court of this State declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (a), it 
shall either dismiss or stay the proceeding. The court may impose any condition the court 
considers just and proper, including the condition that a petition for the appointment of a 
guardian or issuance of a protective order be filed promptly in another state. 
(c).  In determining whether it is an appropriate forum, the court shall consider all 
relevant factors, including: 
(1).  Any expressed preference of the respondent; 
(2).  Whether abuse, neglect or exploitation of the respondent has occurred or is 
likely to occur and which state could best protect the respondent from the abuse, 
neglect or exploitation; 
(3).  The length of time the respondent was physically present in or was a legal 
resident of this State or another state; 
(4).  The distance of the respondent from the court in each state; 
(5).  The financial circumstances of the respondent's estate; 
(6).  The nature and location of the evidence; 
(7).  The ability of the court in each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the 
procedures necessary to present evidence; 
(8).  The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the 
proceeding; and 
(9).  If an appointment were made, the court's ability to monitor the conduct of the 
guardian or conservator. 
Comment 
(This is Section 206 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This section authorizes a court otherwise having jurisdiction to decline 
jurisdiction on the basis that a court in another state is in a better position to make 
a guardianship or protective order determination. The effect of a declination of 
jurisdiction under this section is to rearrange the priorities specified in Section 
203. A court of the home state may decline in favor of a court of a significant-
connection or other state and a court in a significant-connection state may decline 
in favor of a court in another significant-connection or other state. The court 
declining jurisdiction may either dismiss or stay the proceeding. The court may 
also impose any condition the court considers just and proper, including the 
condition that a petition for the appointment of a guardian or issuance of a 
protective order be filed promptly in another state. 
            This section is similar to Section 207 of the Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997) except that the factors in Section 206(c) 
of this Act have been adapted to address issues most commonly encountered in 
adult guardianship and protective proceedings as opposed to child custody 
determinations. 
            Under Section 203(2)(B), the factors specified in subsection (c) of this 
section are to be employed in determining whether a court of a significant-
connection state may assume jurisdiction when a petition has not been filed in the 
respondent's home state or in another significant-connection state. Under Section 
207(a)(3)(B), the court is to consider these factors in deciding whether it will 
retain jurisdiction when unjustifiable conduct has occurred. 
§5-527.  Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct 
(a).  If at any time a court of this State determines that it acquired jurisdiction to 
appoint a guardian or issue a protective order because of unjustifiable conduct, the court 
may: 
(1).  Decline to exercise jurisdiction; 
(2).  Exercise jurisdiction for the limited purpose of fashioning an appropriate remedy 
to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the respondent or the protection of the 
respondent's property or prevent a repetition of the unjustifiable conduct, including 
staying the proceeding until a petition for the appointment of a guardian or issuance 
of a protective order is filed in a court of another state having jurisdiction; or 
(3).  Continue to exercise jurisdiction after considering: 
(i)  The extent to which the respondent and all persons required to be notified of 
the proceedings have acquiesced in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction; 
(ii)  Whether it is a more appropriate forum than the court of any other state 
under the factors set forth in section 5-526, subsection (c); and 
(iii)  Whether the court of any other state would have jurisdiction under factual 
circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of 
section 5-523. 
(b).  If a court of this State determines that it acquired jurisdiction to appoint a 
guardian or issue a protective order because a party seeking to invoke its jurisdiction 
engaged in unjustifiable conduct, it may assess against that party necessary and 
reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, investigative fees, court costs, 
communication expenses, witness fees and expenses and travel expenses. The court may 
not assess fees, costs or expenses of any kind against this State or a governmental 
subdivision, agency or instrumentality of this State unless authorized by law other than 
this Part. 
Comment 
(This is Section 207 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This section is similar to the Section 208 of the Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997). Like the UCCJEA, this Act does not 
attempt to define "unjustifiable conduct," concluding that this issue is best left to 
the courts. However, a common example could include the unauthorized removal 
of an adult to another state, with that state acquiring emergency jurisdiction under 
Section 204 immediately upon the move and home state jurisdiction under Section 
six months following the move if a petition for a guardianship or protective 
order is not filed during the interim in the soon-to-be former home state. Although 
child custody cases frequently raise different issues than do adult guardianship 
matters, the element of unauthorized removal is encountered in both types of 
proceedings. For the caselaw on unjustifiable conduct under the predecessor 
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (1968), see David Carl Minneman, 
Parties' Misconduct as Grounds for Declining Jurisdiction Under §8 of the 
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 16 A.L.R. 5th 650 (1993).  
            Subsection (a) gives the court authority to fashion an appropriate remedy 
when it has acquired jurisdiction because of unjustifiable conduct. The court may 
decline to exercise jurisdiction; exercise jurisdiction for the limited purpose of 
fashioning an appropriate remedy to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the 
respondent or the protection of the respondent's property or prevent a repetition of 
the unjustifiable conduct; or continue to exercise jurisdiction after considering 
several specified factors. Under subsection (a), the unjustifiable conduct need not 
have been committed by a party.  
            Subsection (b) authorizes a court to assess costs and expenses, including 
attorney's fees, against a party whose unjustifiable conduct caused the court to 
acquire jurisdiction. Subsection (b) applies only if the unjustifiable conduct was 
committed by a party and allows for costs and expenses to be assessed only 
against that party. Similar to Section 208 of the UCCJEA, the court may not assess 
fees, costs, or expenses of any kind against this state or a governmental 
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the state unless authorized by other law. 
§5-528.  Notice of proceeding 
If a petition for the appointment of a guardian or issuance of a protective order is 
brought in this State and this State was not the respondent's home state on the date the 
petition was filed, in addition to complying with the notice requirements of this State, 
notice of the petition must be given to those persons who would be entitled to notice of 
the petition if a proceeding were brought in the respondent's home state. The notice must 
be given in the same manner as notice is required to be given in this State. 
Comment 
(This is Section 208 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            While this Act tries not to interfere with a state's underlying substantive 
law on guardianship and protective proceedings, the issue of notice is 
fundamental. Under this section, when a proceeding is brought other than in the 
respondent's home state, the petitioner must give notice in the method provided 
under local law not only to those entitled to notice under local law but also to the 
persons required to be notified were the proceeding brought in the respondent's 
home state. Frequently, the respective lists of persons to be notified will be the 
same. But where the lists are different, notice under this section will assure that 
someone with a right to assert that the home state has a primary right to 
jurisdiction will have the opportunity to make that assertion. 
§5-529.  Proceedings in more than one state 
Except for a petition for the appointment of a guardian in an emergency or issuance 
of a protective order limited to property located in this State under section 5-524, 
subsection (a), paragraph (1) or (2), if a petition for the appointment of a guardian or 
issuance of a protective order is filed in this State and in another state and neither petition 
has been dismissed or withdrawn, the following apply: 
(a).  If the court in this State has jurisdiction under section 5-523, it may proceed with 
the case unless a court in another state acquires jurisdiction under provisions similar to 
section 5-523 before the appointment or issuance of the order. 
(b).  If the court in this State does not have jurisdiction under section 5-523, whether 
at the time the petition is filed or at any time before the appointment or issuance of the 
order, the court shall stay the proceeding and communicate with the court in the other 
state. If the court in the other state has jurisdiction, the court in this State shall dismiss the 
petition unless the court in the other state determines that the court in this State is a more 
appropriate forum. 
Comment 
(This is Section 209 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            Similar to Section 206 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Act (1997), this section addresses the issue of which court has the 
right to proceed when proceedings for the same respondent are brought in more 
than one state. The provisions of this section, however, have been tailored to the 
needs of adult guardianship and protective proceedings and the particular 
jurisdictional provisions of this Act. Emergency guardianship appointments and 
protective proceedings with respect to property in other states (Sections 204(a)(1) 
and (a)(2)) are excluded from this section because the need for dual appointments 
is frequent in these cases; for example, a petition will be brought in the 
respondent's home state but emergency action will be necessary in the place where 
the respondent is temporarily located, or a petition for the appointment of a 
conservator will be brought in the respondent's home state but real estate located 
in some other state needs to be brought under management.  
            Under the Act only one court in which a petition is pending will have 
jurisdiction under Section 203. If a petition is brought in the respondent's home 
state, that court has jurisdiction over that of any significant-connection or other 
state. If the petition is first brought in a significant-connection state, that 
jurisdiction will be lost if a petition is later brought in the home state prior to an 
appointment or issuance of an order in the significant-connection state. 
Jurisdiction will also be lost in the significant-connection state if the respondent 
has a home state and an objection is filed in the significant-connection state that 
jurisdiction is properly in the home state. If petitions are brought in two 
significant-connection states, the first state has a right to proceed over that of the 
second state, and if a petition is brought in any other state, any claim to 
jurisdiction of that state is subordinate to that of the home state and all significant-
connection states. 
            Under this section, if the court has jurisdiction under Section 203, it has 
the right to proceed unless a court of another state acquires jurisdiction prior to the 
first court making an appointment or issuing a protective order. If the court does 
not have jurisdiction under Section 203, it must defer to the court with jurisdiction 
unless that court determines that the court in this state is the more appropriate 
forum and it thereby acquires jurisdiction. While the rules are straightforward, 
factual issues can arise as to which state is the home state or significant-
connection state. Consequently, while under Section 203 there will almost always 
be a court having jurisdiction to proceed, reliance on the communication, court 
cooperation, and evidence gathering provisions of Sections 104-106 will 
sometimes be necessary to determine which court that might be. 
SUBPART 3 
TRANSFER OF GUARDIANSHIP OR CONSERVATORSHIP 
General Comment 
            While this article consists of two separate sections, they are part of one 
integrated procedure. Article 3 authorizes a guardian or conservator to petition the 
court to transfer the guardianship or conservatorship proceeding to a court of 
another state. Such a transfer is often appropriate when the incapacitated or 
protected person has moved or has been placed in a facility in another state, 
making it impossible for the original court to adequately monitor the proceeding. 
Article 3 authorizes a transfer of a guardianship, a conservatorship, or both. There 
is no requirement that both categories of proceeding be administered in the same 
state. 
            Section 301 addresses procedures in the transferring state. Section 302 
addresses procedures in the accepting state.  
            A transfer begins with the filing of a petition by the guardian or 
conservator as provided in Section 301(a). Notice of this petition must be given to 
the persons who would be entitled to notice were the petition a petition for an 
original appointment. Section 301(b). A hearing on the petition is required only if 
requested or on the court's own motion. Section 301(c). Assuming the court in the 
transferring state is satisfied that the grounds for transfer stated in Section 301(d) 
(guardianship) or 301(e) (conservatorship) have been met, one of which is that the 
court is satisfied that the court in the other state will accept the case, the court 
must issue a provisional order approving the transfer. The transferring court will 
not issue a final order dismissing the case until, as provided in Section 301(f), it 
receives a copy of the provisional order from the accepting court accepting the 
transferred proceeding. 
            Following issuance of the provisional order by the transferring court, a 
petition must be filed in the accepting court as provided in Section 302(a). Notice 
of that petition must be given to those who would be entitled to notice of an 
original petition for appointment in both the transferring state and in the accepting 
state. Section 302(b). A hearing must be held only if requested or on the court's 
own motion. Section 302(c). The court must issue a provisional order accepting 
the case unless it is established that the transfer would be contrary to the 
incapacitated or protected person's interests or the guardian or conservator is 
ineligible for appointment in the accepting state. Section 302(d). The term 
"interests" as opposed to "best interests" was chosen because of the strong 
autonomy values in modern guardianship law. Should the court decline the 
transfer petition, it may consider a separately brought petition for the appointment 
of a guardian or issuance of a protective order only if the court has a basis for 
jurisdiction under Sections 203 or 204 other than by reason of the provisional 
order of transfer. Section 302(h).  
            The final steps are largely ministerial. Pursuant to Section 301(f), the 
provisional order from the accepting court must be filed in the transferring court. 
The transferring court will then issue a final order terminating the proceeding, 
subject to local requirements such as filing of a final report or account and the 
release of any bond. Pursuant to Section 302(e), the final order terminating the 
proceeding in the transferring court must then be filed in the accepting court, 
which will then convert its provisional order accepting the case into a final order 
appointing the petitioning guardian or conservator as guardian or conservator in 
the accepting state.  
            Because guardianship and conservatorship law and practice will likely 
differ between the two states, the court in the accepting state must within 90 days 
after issuance of a final order determine whether the guardianship or 
conservatorship needs to be modified to conform to the law of the accepting state. 
Section 302(f). The number "90" is placed in brackets to encourage states to 
coordinate this time limit with the time limits for other required filings such as 
guardianship or conservatorship plans. This initial period in the accepting state is 
also an appropriate time to change the guardian or conservator if there is a more 
appropriate person to act as guardian or conservator in the accepting state. The 
drafters specifically did not try to design the procedures in Article 3 for the 
difficult problems that can arise in connection with a transfer when the guardian or 
conservator is ineligible to act in the second state, a circumstance that can occur 
when a financial institution is acting as conservator or a government agency is 
acting as guardian. Rather, the procedures in Article 3 are designed for the typical 
case where the guardian or conservator is legally eligible to act in the second state. 
Should that particular guardian or conservator not be the best person to act in the 
accepting state, a change of guardian or conservator can be initiated once the 
transfer has been secured. 
            The transfer procedure in this article responds to numerous problems that 
have arisen in connection with attempted transfers under the existing law of most 
states. Sometimes a court will dismiss a case on the assumption a proceeding will 
be brought in another state, but such proceeding is never filed. Sometimes a court 
will refuse to dismiss a case until the court in the other state accepts the matter, 
but the court in the other state refuses to consider the petition until the already 
existing guardianship or conservatorship has been terminated. Oftentimes the 
court will conclude that it is without jurisdiction to make an appointment until the 
respondent is physically present in the state, a problem which Section 204(a)(3) 
addresses by granting a court special jurisdiction to consider a petition to accept a 
proceeding from another state. But the most serious problem is the need to prove 
the case in the second state from scratch, including proving the respondent's 
incapacity and the choice of guardian or conservator. Article 3 eliminates this 
problem. Section 302(g) requires that the court accepting the case recognize a 
guardianship or conservatorship order from the other state, including the 
determination of the incapacitated or protected person's incapacity and the 
appointment of the guardian or conservator, if otherwise eligible to act in the 
accepting state. 
§5-531.  Transfer of guardianship or conservatorship to another state 
(a).  A guardian or conservator appointed in this State may petition the court to 
transfer the guardianship or conservatorship to another state. 
(b).  Notice of a petition under subsection (a) must be given to the persons that would 
be entitled to notice of a petition in this State for the appointment of a guardian or 
conservator.  
(c).  On the court's own motion or on request of the guardian or conservator, the 
incapacitated person or protected person or other person required to be notified of the 
petition, the court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to subsection (a). 
(d).  The court shall issue an order provisionally granting a petition to transfer a 
guardianship and shall direct the guardian to petition for guardianship in the other state if 
the court is satisfied that the guardianship will be accepted by the court in the other state 
and the court finds that: 
(1).  The incapacitated person is physically present in or is reasonably expected to 
move permanently to the other state; 
(2).  An objection to the transfer has not been made or, if an objection has been made, 
the objector has not established that the transfer would be contrary to the interests of 
the incapacitated person; and 
(3).  Plans for care and services for the incapacitated person in the other state are 
reasonable and sufficient. 
(e).  The court shall issue a provisional order granting a petition to transfer a 
conservatorship and shall direct the conservator to petition for conservatorship in the 
other state if the court is satisfied that the conservatorship will be accepted by the court of 
the other state and the court finds that: 
(1).  The protected person is physically present in or is reasonably expected to move 
permanently to the other state, or the protected person has a significant connection to 
the other state considering the factors in section 5-521, subsection (b); 
(2).  An objection to the transfer has not been made or, if an objection has been made, 
the objector has not established that the transfer would be contrary to the interests of 
the protected person; and 
(3).  Adequate arrangements will be made for management of the protected person's 
property. 
(f).  The court shall issue a final order confirming the transfer and terminating the 
guardianship or conservatorship upon its receipt of: 
(1).  A provisional order accepting the proceeding from the court to which the 
proceeding is to be transferred that is issued under provisions similar to section 
5-532; and 
(2).  The documents required to terminate a guardianship or conservatorship in this 
State. 
§5-532.  Accepting guardianship or conservatorship transferred from another state 
(a).  To confirm transfer of a guardianship or conservatorship transferred to this State 
under provisions similar to section 5-531, the guardian or conservator must petition the 
court in this State to accept the guardianship or conservatorship. The petition must 
include a certified copy of the other state's provisional order of transfer. 
(b).  Notice of a petition under subsection (a) must be given to those persons that 
would be entitled to notice if the petition were a petition for the appointment of a 
guardian or issuance of a protective order in both the transferring state and this State. The 
notice must be given in the same manner as notice is required to be given in this State. 
(c).  On the court's own motion or on request of the guardian or conservator, the 
incapacitated person or protected person or other person required to be notified of the 
proceeding, the court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to subsection (a). 
(d).  The court shall issue an order provisionally granting a petition filed under 
subsection (a) unless: 
(1).  An objection is made and the objector establishes that transfer of the proceeding 
would be contrary to the interests of the incapacitated person or protected person; or 
(2).  The guardian or conservator is ineligible for appointment in this State. 
(e).  The court shall issue a final order accepting the proceeding and appointing the 
guardian or conservator as guardian or conservator in this State upon its receipt from the 
court from which the proceeding is being transferred of a final order issued under 
provisions similar to section 5-531 transferring the proceeding to this State. 
(f).  Not later than 90 days after issuance of a final order accepting transfer of a 
guardianship or conservatorship, the court shall determine whether the guardianship or 
conservatorship needs to be modified to conform to the law of this State. 
(g).  In granting a petition under this section, the court shall recognize a guardianship 
or conservatorship order from the other state, including the determination of the 
incapacitated person's or protected person's incapacity and the appointment of the 
guardian or conservator. 
(h).  The denial by a court of this State of a petition to accept a guardianship or 
conservatorship transferred from another state does not affect the ability of the guardian 
or conservator to seek appointment as guardian or conservator in this State under Part 3 
or 4 if the court has jurisdiction to make an appointment other than by reason of the 
provisional order of transfer. 
SUBPART 4 
REGISTRATION AND RECOGNITION OF ORDERS FROM OTHER STATES 
General Comment 
            Article 4 is designed to facilitate the enforcement of guardianship and 
protective orders in other states. This article does not make distinctions among the 
types of orders that can be enforced. This article is applicable whether the 
guardianship or conservatorship is full or limited. While some states have 
expedited procedures for sales of real estate by conservators appointed in other 
states, few states have enacted statutes dealing with enforcement of guardianship 
orders, such as when a care facility questions the authority of a guardian appointed 
in another state. Sometimes, these sorts of refusals necessitate that the proceeding 
be transferred to the other state or that an entirely new petition be filed, problems 
that could often be avoided if guardianship and protective orders were entitled to 
recognition in other states.  
            Article 4 provides for such recognition. The key concept is registration. 
Section 401 provides for registration of guardianship orders, and Section 402 for 
registration of protective orders. Following registration of the order in the 
appropriate county of the other state, and after giving notice to the appointing 
court of the intent to register the order in the other state, Section 403 authorizes 
the guardian or conservator to thereafter exercise all powers authorized in the 
order of appointment except as prohibited under the laws of the registering state.  
            The drafters of the Act concluded that the registration of certified copies 
provides sufficient protection and that it was not necessary to mandate the filing of 
authenticated copies. 
§5-541.  Registration of guardianship 
If a guardian has been appointed in another state and a petition for the appointment of 
a guardian is not pending in this State, the guardian appointed in the other state, after 
giving notice to the appointing court of an intent to register, may register the guardianship 
order in this State by filing as a foreign judgment in a court, in any appropriate county of 
this State, certified copies of the order and letters of office. 
§5-542.  Registration of protective orders 
If a conservator has been appointed in another state and a petition for a protective 
order is not pending in this State, the conservator appointed in the other state, after giving 
notice to the appointing court of an intent to register, may register the protective order in 
this State by filing as a foreign judgment in a court of this State, in any county in which 
property belonging to the protected person is located, certified copies of the order and 
letters of office and of any bond. 
§5-543.  Effect of registration  
(a).  Upon registration of a guardianship or protective order from another state, the 
guardian or conservator may exercise in this State all powers authorized in the order of 
appointment except as prohibited under the laws of this State, including maintaining 
actions and proceedings in this State and, if the guardian or conservator is not a resident 
of this State, subject to any conditions imposed upon nonresident parties. 
(b).  A court of this State may grant any relief available under this Part and other law 
of this State to enforce a registered order. 
SUBPART 5 
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 
§5-551.  Uniformity of application and construction 
In applying and construing this Act, consideration must be given to the need to 
promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it. 
§5-552.  Relation to Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 
This Part modifies, limits and supersedes the federal Electronic Signatures in Global 
and National Commerce Act, 15 United States Code, Section 7001 et seq., but does not 
modify, limit or supersede 15 United States Code, Section 7001(c) or authorize electronic 
delivery of any of the notices described in 15 United States Code, Section 7003(b). 
§5-553.  Transitional provisions 
(a).  This Part applies to guardianship and protective proceedings begun on or after 
January 1, 2012. 
(b).  Subparts 1, 3 and 4 and sections 5-551 and 5-552 apply to proceedings begun 
before January 1, 2012, regardless of whether a guardianship or protective order has been 
issued. 
Comment 
(This is Section 504 of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective 
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.) 
            This Act applies retroactively to guardianships and conservatorships in 
existence on the effective date. The guardian or conservator appointed prior to the 
effective date of the Act may petition to transfer the proceeding to another state 
under Article 3 and register and enforce the order in other states pursuant to 
Article 4. The jurisdictional provisions of Article 2 also apply to proceedings 
begun on or after the effective date. What the Act does not do is change the 
jurisdictional rules midstream for petitions filed prior to the effective date for 
which an appointment has not been made or order issued as of the effective date. 
Jurisdiction in such cases is governed by prior law. Nor does the Act affect the 
validity of already existing appointments even though the court might not have 
had jurisdiction had this Act been in effect at the time the appointment was made. 
§5-554.  Effective date 
This Part takes effect January 1, 2012. 
SUMMARY 
This bill enacts the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings 
Jurisdiction Act as a new Part of Article 5 of the Probate Code.  The uniform comments 
adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws are 
included. 
The bill addresses the issue of jurisdiction over adult guardianships, conservatorships 
and other protective proceedings, providing an effective mechanism for resolving 
multistate jurisdictional disputes. It contains specific guidelines to specify which court 
has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or conservator for an incapacitated adult. The 
objective is that only one state will have jurisdiction at any one time. 
The bill takes effect January 1, 2012, but applies to all guardianships and 
conservatorships, including those created prior to that date.