California Legal Brief

The Rule of Haun v. Pagano is that a successful petitioner may recover attorney's fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) for prosecution of a financial elder abuse claim even when those fees are inextricably intertwined with defending against a competing elder abuse claim, under the circumstances where the petitioner is seeking fees as a prevailing plaintiff under the unilateral fee-shifting provision rather than as a prevailing defendant under a bilateral fee provision.

Appeal from judgment after court trial in Superior Court, San Diego County.

Defendant Appellant was Kelly Pagano — the caregiver who filed a competing petition alleging Haun and Jeff Frazier committed financial elder abuse through undue influence.

Plaintiff Respondent was Theodore Haun — Frazier's nephew serving as trustee of the January 2020 trust who petitioned to confirm that trust and alleged the Paganos committed financial elder abuse.

The suit sounded in financial elder abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Cross-claims included competing petitions to settle rights under two different trusts.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Charles Frazier, an 83-year-old cancer patient, executed a trust in December 2019 benefiting the Paganos after they provided significant care, but then told his nephews he felt pressured to sign it and executed a new trust in January 2020 shortly before his death, leading to competing claims of undue influence by both sides.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Haun's petition and denied Kelly's petition, finding the Paganos exercised undue influence over the December 2019 trust, awarded Haun compensatory damages and attorney's fees of $536,448, ruling that the unilateral fee-shifting provision allowed fees for prosecution of elder abuse claims even when intertwined with defense of competing elder abuse claims.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether an award of attorney's fees under section 15657.5(a) was improper because the petitioner was also the cross-respondent defending an unsuccessful competing elder abuse claim, and whether all fees should be denied when they are inextricably intertwined and overlapping.

The Appellate Court held that a successful petitioner may recover attorney's fees under section 15657.5(a) for prosecution of financial elder abuse claims even when those fees overlap with defending against competing elder abuse claims, because unlike cases involving prevailing defendants seeking fees under bilateral provisions, awarding fees to a prevailing petitioner under the unilateral provision does not undermine the legislative intent to encourage prosecution of elder abuse claims.

The case is inapplicable when the successful party is a defendant seeking fees under a contractual or bilateral statutory provision that conflicts with a unilateral fee-shifting statute, or when the fee request is based solely on defense work without any prosecution of an elder abuse claim.

The case leaves open whether apportionment would be required if fees could be practically separated between prosecuting valid elder abuse claims and defending against competing claims, and the standard for determining when litigation work is "inextricably intertwined" in the context of competing elder abuse petitions.