{"id":290,"date":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=290"},"modified":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","slug":"haun-v-pagano-d084385-financial-elder-abuse-attorney-fees-section-15657-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=290","title":{"rendered":"Haun v. Pagano \u2014 Successful Petitioner in Financial-Elder-Abuse Case Could Recover Fees Even Though He Defended Competing Cross-Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Haun v. Pagano<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-18<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D084385<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Financial Elder Abuse, Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, Attorney Fees, Trust Contest, Undue Influence<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Charles Frazier was 83 years old and ill with aggressive cancer when he was discharged from the hospital into the home of family friends Michael and Kelly Pagano. The Paganos provided substantial care for Frazier, and they took him three times to their estate-planning attorney to revise his trust. The new trust gave the Paganos a large portion of Frazier’s assets. Frazier executed the new trust on December 20, 2019, and Kelly facilitated the transfer of Frazier’s assets to the new trust.<\/p>\n

Days after Frazier was moved to a hospice facility, his nephews \u2014 including Theodore Haun \u2014 visited and learned of the new trust. Frazier said he had felt pressured to sign and asked for help reverting his estate plan. Eventually, Haun became trustee of an earlier-form trust and pursued a probate-court petition alleging financial elder abuse against the Paganos. The Paganos filed a competing cross-petition alleging elder abuse against Haun. After trial, Haun prevailed; the court granted his petition and rejected the Paganos’ competing claim. Haun then sought attorney fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) \u2014 California’s unilateral fee-shifting provision for successful financial-elder-abuse plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

The Paganos opposed, arguing that fees inextricably intertwined between Haun’s affirmative claim and his defense of their cross-claim were not recoverable under the unilateral statute. The probate court awarded Haun his fees. The Paganos appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. Distinguishing Carver v. Chevron U.S.A. (which limited fee recovery under unilateral fee statutes when the plaintiff also litigated unrelated claims), the court held that section 15657.5(a) permits recovery of fees that are inextricably intertwined with the successful elder-abuse claim, even when those fees also relate to defending against a competing claim by the same wrongdoers.<\/p>\n

The court reasoned that the Paganos’ cross-petition was the mirror-image flip side of Haun’s affirmative case \u2014 both turned on the same disputed conduct surrounding Frazier’s last weeks. Haun’s defense of the cross-petition was essentially identical to proving his own elder-abuse case. Refusing fees for that defense work would undermine section 15657.5(a)’s remedial purpose by chilling successful elder-abuse plaintiffs from defending against retaliatory cross-claims.<\/p>\n

The probate court’s calculation of fees was reasonable, and the Carver framework did not require apportionment where the work could not be meaningfully separated.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n