Short answer. The court may discharge the old sureties, but only after due notice to interested persons and only when no injury can result to those interested in the estate — typically because a new bond is required in its place, keeping protection continuous.
What the law says
Whenever it is deemed necessary, the court may require a new bond to be given by the guardian, and may discharge the sureties on the old bond from further liability, after due notice to interested persons, when no injury can result therefrom to those interested in the estate.
Rule 94, Section 2 — When new bond may be required and old sureties discharged. Read the full provision →
The court's power over bonds
The rule gives the court two connected powers: it may require a new bond to be given by the guardian, and separately may discharge the sureties on the old bond from further liability. These typically work together, with a new bond replacing the protection the old sureties are being released from. The court is not limited to discharging the old bond in isolation; it can condition the discharge on the guardian first posting adequate replacement security, so the ward's estate is never left without some form of financial backstop during the transition.
Two safeguards before discharge
Neither power is exercised freely. The court must give due notice to interested persons first, and can only discharge sureties when no injury can result therefrom to those interested in the estate — the ward's protection is not left to trust or convenience. Interested persons, typically the ward's relatives or co-guardians, get the chance to raise objections before the discharge is granted, and the court itself must be affirmatively satisfied that releasing the old sureties creates no realistic risk to the estate, not merely that no one happened to object.
Why continuity of coverage matters
A guardianship bond exists to give the ward's estate recourse if the guardian mismanages it. Releasing the old sureties without ensuring equivalent coverage remains in place would defeat that purpose, which is why the "no injury" condition functions as a real check, not a formality. If a guardian later misappropriated estate funds after the old bond had been discharged with no replacement actually secured, the ward's estate could be left with no one to recover from, exactly the outcome the notice-and-no-injury requirements are designed to prevent.
Scope given the 2003 carve-out
This bond provision, like the rest of Rules 92 to 97, now governs guardianship of incompetents who are not minors; bonds for guardians of minors are addressed under the separate 2003 Rule on Guardianship of Minors. That later rule carved minors' guardianship out of Rules 92 to 97 and set its own bond and discharge procedures, so anyone dealing with a bondsman for a minor's guardian needs to consult that separate issuance rather than this provision.
Related provisions
- Rule 94, Section 2 — When new bond may be required and old sureties discharged
- Rule 94, Section 3 — Bonds to be filed; Actions thereon