WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 272

Guardians and Conservators - As introduced, requires a hearing on a petitioner for the appointment of a guardian or conservator to be held within 90 days, rather than 60 days, from the date of service on the respondent or the date a guardian ad litem was appointed. - Amends TCA Title 24; Title 25; Title 26; Title 27; Title 28; Title 29; Title 30; Title 31; Title 32; Title 34; Title 35 and Title 36.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Todd Gardenhire

Tennessee SB 272 extends guardianship and conservatorship hearing timelines from 60 to 90 days, giving respondents and counsel more preparation time but delaying protective decisions for vulnerable individuals.

Passed on Second Consideration, refer to Senate Judiciary Committee
#guardiansandconservators
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 272

Legislative bill overview

SB 272 extends the required timeframe for holding guardianship and conservatorship appointment hearings from 60 days to 90 days after service on the respondent or appointment of a guardian ad litem. The bill amends multiple sections of Tennessee Code to implement this change across guardianship and conservatorship proceedings.

Why is this important

Guardianship and conservatorship proceedings directly affect vulnerable individuals' legal rights and control over their persons and/or estates. The timeline for hearings influences how quickly decisions are made about who manages these critical matters, balancing the need for swift resolution against adequate time for case preparation and legal representation.

Potential points of contention

  • Burden on vulnerable individuals: Extending the timeline by 30 days delays resolution for respondents who may be elderly, incapacitated, or in crisis situations requiring immediate protective decisions
  • Due process vs. efficiency trade-off: While 90 days provides more preparation time for respondents and their counsel, critics may argue 60 days was already reasonable and extensions unnecessarily delay necessary protections
  • Consistency with other states: The rationale for this specific 90-day benchmark compared to practices in other jurisdictions is unclear from the bill description alone

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.