Bill
HB 125
HB125 creates a court-approval path for conservator actions and liability releases, while invalidating private liability waivers signed solely by protected persons.
Status
- Action postponed indefinitely (committee action recorded 2025-06-03).
- Committee substitute developed in early 2025; if enacted the substitute was intended to take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns (noted in analysis as June 20, 2025).
Purpose / Intent
- To change how liability releases or waivers related to conservatorships are treated by law. The substitute creates a court-centered procedure for conservators to obtain approval for actions (and, implicitly, court-sanctioned protection from later challenges), while barring certain private releases signed by protected persons.
Key provisions (committee substitute)
- Removal of a statutory prohibition that previously barred conservators from seeking or enforcing releases or waivers of liability for conservatorship acts. (i.e., permits conservators to seek court approval/releases under the substitute’s procedures)
- Court approval procedure (Sections E & F as described):
- Conservator must file a petition describing the action or proposed action and must notify parties specified in NMSA 1978 §45-5-405 (the protected person, the conservator, and other persons the court determines).
- The court must hold a hearing with notice to those same parties before approving actions or reports.
- If the protected person has died, notice must also be given to heirs and the personal representative named in the decedent’s will.
- Invalidity of private releases (Section G):
- Releases of liability for conservators that are signed solely by the protected person are declared invalid (i.e., a protected-person-signed waiver cannot bar later claims).
- Guardian ad litem (Section H):
- The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to review petitions and report to the court; reports must be provided to the conservator and those entitled to notice.
- No effective-date provision in the substitute; fiscal analysis assumed standard 90-day post-adjournment effective date.
Who would be affected
- Conservators (professional and private) and their counsel — by creating a path to seek pre-approval of actions and potential court-sanctioned releases.
- Protected persons and their heirs/representatives — by strengthening protections against private releases and by ensuring notice/hearings.
- Courts — by adding petitions, hearings, and possible guardian ad litem work.
- Financial institutions / professional conservators — potential practical effects on willingness to serve as conservators (see below).
Fiscal impact
- Legislative Finance Committee and other fiscal notes: no state or local fiscal impact identified; no appropriation required.
Significant issues, concerns, and related legislation
- Supporters (Developmental Disabilities Council): the substitute’s pre-approval procedure may encourage professional conservators and institutions to remain or re-enter the field by offering a clearer route to court-sanctioned decisions.
- New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG): highlights that New Mexico courts have generally scrutinized private releases/waivers for clarity and public-policy conflicts; NMAG notes the substitute removes the possibility of treating private waivers as enforceable but also flags that courts may already find many waivers unenforceable under existing tests (Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp.; Peck v. G-Force Gymnastics Acad.). NMAG also flagged that the substitute is unclear about which “actions or proposed actions” may be submitted for approval.
- Possible conflict with HB 124: Administrative Office of the Courts noted potential conflict regarding post-death procedures and mandatory hearings upon death.
Bottom line
- The substitute attempted to balance conservator protection and protected-person safeguards by allowing court-mediated approval of conservator actions (and thereby potential court-recognized releases) while invalidating private waivers signed by protected persons. The measure raised legal clarity and process concerns and was ultimately postponed indefinitely.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
