Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed January 5, 2023

CJA06-0501. Reporting requirements for guardians and conservators. Proposed amendments clarify that a corporate fiduciary must attach its own internal reports and accountings to court approved forms.

CJA03-0406. Budget and fiscal management. Proposed amendments incorporate the role of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee and make other improvements to clarify the budget process.

CJA03-0104. Presiding judges. Proposed amendments require presiding judges to notify the appropriate state level administrator when a judge fails to submit a required case under advisement statement. If a judge fails to submit a required statement for two consecutive months, the state level administrator must notify the Management Committee.


Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed January 5, 2023
  1. Kent Hansen

    For CJA06-0501, should the proposed amendment to (5)(A)(ii) indicate whether the accounting should be attached to the court approved form (similar to (A)(i))?

  2. Tracy Olson

    With the changes already made to guardianship and conservatorship reporting, I have found that these rules are put in place, but the court approved forms are not been updated. Additionally, there is no reason why a corporate fiduciary “shall” file its internal report or accounting, changing the language from “may.” These internal reports often need to be modified or edited for filing because they are not kept in the same form as the court approved format. Additionally, these “internal reports” often have confidential information that exceeds what is required in the statute and rules and may violate the recent amendments to the guardianship code. See 75-5-301.5 (2) “Except as otherwise provided by this chapter or any other law, an incapacitated person for whom a guardian is appointed has right to:(n) maintain privacy and confidentiality in personal matters.” These internal reports may also include attorney-client privileged communication. It is not clear why the change in the language was needed. Please explain.

    1. Michael A. Jensen

      I object to the change in (5)(A)(i). The Court seems uninterested is conserving funds of the protected person. Requiring a corporate fiduciary to prepare and submit the “court approved form” in addition to its internal accounting form will absolutely increase the cost of submitting the annual and final accountings. There is no justifiable reason for requiring this change. For more than 20 years I have been submitting accountings for a corporate fiduciary and never have I had an objection to the form of the accounting by any court or any interested person. This is an unnecessary proposed change. Furthermore, the accounting prepared by a corporate fiduciary is generally far more easily comprehended and understood than any court approved form since it follows the general accounting standards accepted and approved by CPAs. The court approved form does not meet that standard. In effect, the corporate form shows “Beginning Assets”, “Income”, “Expenditures”, and “Ending Assets” in a logical sequence. Also, on the “Forms” page of the Utah Courts website, there is no approved form for a conservator! See This is a change when there is and has been no problem.