Cal. Codes » Probate Code / DIVISION 4. GUARDIANSHIP, CONSERVATORSHIP, AND OTHER PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS / PART 4. PROVISIONS COMMON TO GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP / CHAPTER 6. Powers and Duties of Guardian or Conservator of the Estate / ARTICLE 10. Substituted Judgment
California Codes

Cal. Probate Code § 2582 (2026)

Substituted Judgment

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The court may make an order authorizing or requiring the proposed action under this article only if the court determines all of the following:

(a)The conservatee either (1) is not opposed to the proposed action or (2) if opposed to the proposed action, lacks legal capacity for the proposed action.

(b)Either the proposed action will have no adverse effect on the estate or the estate remaining after the proposed action is taken will be adequate to provide for the needs of the conservatee and for the support of those legally entitled to support, maintenance, and education from the conservatee, taking into account the age, physical condition, standards of living, and all other relevant circumstances of the conservatee and those legally entitled to support, maintenance, and education from the conservatee.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1987–2015 · leading case: Conservatorship of McElroy, 104 Cal. App. 4th 536 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Conservatorship of McElroy, 104 Cal. App. 4th 536 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “Probate Code section 2582 provides that the court may make an order for substituted judgment only if it determines that the conservatee either is not opposed to the order or, if opposed, lacks legal capacity for the proposed action.”
In re Est. of Berger, 520 N.E.2d 690 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987). “( Cal. Prob. Code § 2582 (West).) Finally, the California statute states with particularity *1079 the general criteria recognized by Christiansen as being relevant to a determination as to whether a proposed action concerning a conservatee's estate should be authorized.”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Keresey, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1244 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “(Prob. Code, § 2582, subd. (a).) Keresey does not challenge the Bank’s representation that Hart lacked necessary legal capacity and was not likely to recover it.”
Goodman v. Berger, 520 N.E.2d 690 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1987). “( Cal. Prob. Code §2582 (West).) Finally, the California statute states with particularity the general criteria recognized by Christiansen as being relevant to a determination as to whether a proposed action concerning a conservatee’s estate should be authorized.”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Cornell, No. G049748 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). “Despite Janet’s claims to the contrary, Probate Code section 2582, et seq. has no relevance here.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.