Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent

Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable.

In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in favor of a prevailing plaintiff/petitioner.  What happened here was that there were dueling probate petitions for undue influence/financial elder abuse dealing with trusts generated by each side to rectify what they thought the decedent desired or was right.  At the end of the day, the Haun side won their financial elder abuse petition and defensed the Paganos’ petition as the cross-respondent.  Distinguishing different cases where the unilateral fee-shifting prohibition would have been circumvented, the trial court concluded that there was no conflict because the prevailing petitioner should also obtain fee work for defensing a competing elder abuse claim in a cross-respondent status.  The appellate court agreed, determining that intertwined work on the “defense” case should be compensated for the prevailing petitioner.  In the end, the Haun side won fees totaling $536,448, with a little over a $65,000 reduction for certain billing issues–after finding apportionment was not possible between work on the two petitions.