Community property in trust.

New amendments to Probate Code Sections 100 and 102 allow a spouse to establish a trust under Division 9 and fund it by transferring that spouse's one-half of community personal property, quasi-community personal property (Section 100(c)), and community real property (Section 102(d)) for the purpose of disposing of those assets on that spouse's death.

The legislative intent statement that the Legislature intended to enact legislation making cases of theft from an elder by a caretaker 'visible, trackable, and screenable statewide' was removed entirely.

A new rule specifies that a spouse's interest in community property transferred to such a trust remains community property unless both spouses agree otherwise in writing, applying to both personal and real property transfers.

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'yes' to 'no,' indicating the bill no longer carries a state fiscal impact requiring legislative approval of appropriation.

Minor language clarifications in existing Probate Code text: 'Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require' was changed to 'This subdivision does not require' (Section 100(b)), and 'Nothing in this section requires' was changed to 'This section does not require' (Section 102(b)).

New Section 9114.5 added to the Welfare and Institutions Code requiring the California Department of Aging to contract out a study on theft from elders and dependent adults in long-term care facilities (as defined in Section 9701). The study must be conducted in large rural, suburban, and urban counties.

The study must specifically address two questions: (1) whether theft from elders or dependent adults is being underreported, and (2) whether employees of long-term care facilities who are credibly accused of theft are being moved among different facilities.

The department must submit the report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2029. The new section self-repeals on January 1, 2033.

Fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the amendment creates a fiscal impact (contracting out a study) that was not present in the introduced version, which had no operative spending provisions.

Digest now references the Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act and the California Department of Aging as existing law context, clarifying which agency is responsible for the new mandate.