Haun v. Pagano

Cite as D084385
Filed February 18, 2026
Fourth District, Div. One

By Hengameh Kishani
Temmerman, Cilley, Kohlmann & Norcia LLP
https://www.tcklawfirm.com

Headnote:  Litigation – Prevailing party entitled to fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a), including fees incurred in responding to cross-petition

Summary: Prevailing party who is also a cross-respondent is entitled to fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) where there is no conflicting bilateral fee provision.

Theodore Haun, as trustee of Charles Frazier’s January 11, 2020 trust, filed a petition alleging that Michael and Kelly Pagano committed financial elder abuse by procuring an earlier December 2019 trust through undue influence. The Paganos filed a competing petition alleging Haun and another nephew committed financial elder abuse in connection with the January 11, 2020 trust. After an eight-day bench trial, the probate court found the Paganos unduly influenced Frazier, granted Haun’s petition, denied the Paganos’ petition, and ultimately awarded Haun damages and attorney’s fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a).

The Paganos appealed the fee award, arguing under Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. and related cases that because section 15657.5 contains a unilateral fee-shifting provision, Haun could not recover fees that overlapped with his defense of their competing elder abuse claim. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and affirmed. It held that Carver and similar cases bar prevailing defendants from recovering overlapping fees where doing so would undermine legislative intent behind unilateral fee statutes. Here, however, Haun was the prevailing petitioner, sought fees solely under section 15657.5(a), and there was no conflicting bilateral fee provision. Because the prosecution and defense of the competing elder abuse claims were inextricably intertwined, the probate court properly awarded the recoverable fees, subject to reasonable reductions for billing issues.

Please note that the Court of Appeal will move this published opinion into its “archive” approximately 60 days following the opinion’s above filing date, at which time the above link will no longer be operative.