Prevailing Elder Abuse Plaintiff Entitled to Attorney's Fees

Trust Law Controversies

Prevailing Elder Abuse Plaintiff Entitled to Attorney’s Fees for Inextricably Intertwined Defense Work

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court: Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California

Date: February 18, 2026

Citation: Haun v. Pagano, No. D084385, 2026 WL 455372 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026)

Summary of Relevant Facts

Charles Frazier, age 83 with aggressive cancer, was discharged into the care of Michael and Kelly Pagano in November 2019. Despite Frazier’s stated intent to only remove his estranged daughter from his trust, the Paganos facilitated execution of a new trust in December 2019 that gave them a large portion of Frazier’s assets. Kelly completed the entire questionnaire for the estate planning attorney. In January 2020, when the Paganos could no longer provide adequate care and moved Frazier to a hospice facility, Frazier’s nephews visited and learned of the new trust. Frazier told them he felt pressured and asked them to help him change his estate plan. Frazier executed a new trust on January 11, 2020, and died nine days later.

Procedural Background

Two days after Frazier’s death, Kelly filed a civil complaint asserting financial elder abuse against the nephews and the attorney who prepared the final trust. Theodore Haun, as trustee of the January 2020 trust, filed a competing probate petition alleging elder abuse by the Paganos. Kelly filed a competing probate petition as well. The civil action was stayed and the competing petitions were consolidated. After an eight-day trial, the probate court found undue influence by the Paganos, granted Haun’s petition, denied the Paganos’ petition, awarded $78,870 in doubled compensatory damages, and awarded approximately $536,000 in attorney’s fees. The Paganos appealed.

Main Controversies

The primary appellate controversy was whether a prevailing plaintiff’s attorney’s fee award under the unilateral elder abuse fee-shifting statute (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5(a)) could include fees spent defending against the losing party’s competing elder abuse claim, where the defense work was inextricably intertwined with prosecuting the successful petition.

Position of the Parties

The Paganos argued that Haun was effectively a defendant on their competing claim and therefore subject to the Carver doctrine, which limits fee recovery for prevailing defendants under one-way fee-shifting statutes. They also argued the fees were inflated and that apportionment between offense and defense was required. Haun argued he was a prevailing plaintiff—the type of party the legislature intended to encourage—and that the Carver rule applies only to defendants. Because the entire case centered on competing elder abuse claims from the same transaction, apportionment was impracticable.

Holding or Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the entire judgment, including the $536,448 attorney’s fee award. It held that the Carver doctrine applies only to prevailing defendants seeking fees under conflicting fee-shifting provisions, not to prevailing plaintiffs seeking fees under the very statute that authorizes them. Because the prosecution and defense were inextricably intertwined, all reasonable fees were recoverable.

Reasons for the Decision

The court distinguished the Carver line of cases by focusing on Haun’s status as a petitioner/plaintiff. The Carver rule exists to protect the legislature’s intent behind unilateral fee-shifting—to encourage prosecution of elder abuse claims—by preventing successful defendants from recovering fees that would deter such claims. No such conflict arises when a successful plaintiff recovers fees under the same statute. The legislative intent is furthered, not undermined, by awarding overlapping fees to the party who successfully proved elder abuse. On apportionment, the court found that because the entire lawsuit centered on competing elder abuse claims arising from the same facts, the fees incurred in prosecuting Haun’s claim were entirely intertwined with fees for defending against the Paganos’ competing claim. The trial court’s discretionary reduction of over $65,000 for excessive billing, block billing, vague time entries, and mathematical errors was upheld.