If a referee or commissioner is appointed by a court and the duties of the referee or commissioner will, or are reasonably anticipated to, involve the custody of personal property or the receipt or disbursement of moneys, the order of appointment shall provide that before entering upon the duties, the referee or commissioner shall execute an undertaking to the State of California, to the effect that the referee or commissioner will faithfully discharge the duties of referee or commissioner, as the case may be, and obey the orders of the court therein. The order of appointment shall specify the amount of the undertaking, but a failure to so specify shall not invalidate the order.
§ 571.Referee Or Commissioner Appointed By Court
Title 7. Other Provisional Remedies In Civil Actions · Chapter 5A. Undertaking of Persons Handling Private Property or Funds · Last amended 1982 · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceSection 571 requires that when a court appoints a referee or commissioner whose duties will or reasonably may involve custody of personal property or receipt or disbursement of money, the order of appointment must require an undertaking to the State of California promising faithful performance and obedience to the court's orders, in an amount the court specifies.
Full Text of § 571
Plain-English Summary
Chapter 5A covers a narrower situation than the receivership chapter before it: referees and commissioners the court appoints for a specific task, who happen to end up holding someone else's property or money along the way. Section 571 requires the court's order appointing that referee or commissioner to include a bonding requirement whenever the assignment will, or reasonably might, involve custody of personal property or the receipt or disbursement of funds.
The undertaking itself mirrors what § 567 requires of a receiver -- it runs to the State of California, and it promises the referee or commissioner will faithfully discharge the assigned duties and obey the court's orders in the matter. The order has to specify the amount of the undertaking, but a slip on that front -- leaving the amount unspecified -- doesn't invalidate the appointment itself.
The trigger for this requirement is deliberately generous to caution: it isn't limited to referees certain to handle property or money, but extends to any appointment where that outcome is reasonably anticipated, even if it doesn't end up happening.
Frequently Asked Questions
When must a court require a bond from a referee or commissioner?
Whenever the referee's or commissioner's duties will, or are reasonably anticipated to, involve custody of personal property or the receipt or disbursement of money.
What does the undertaking required by § 571 promise?
That the referee or commissioner will faithfully discharge the assigned duties and obey the court's orders in the matter.
Who is the referee's or commissioner's bond payable to?
The State of California.
Does forgetting to state the bond amount invalidate the appointment?
No, § 571 says a failure to specify the amount does not invalidate the order of appointment.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 517, Sec. 129.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: referee commissioner bond californiaundertaking referee handling property california