Financial Abuse of Elders and the Recovery of Attorneys' Fees

Posted on December 23, 2009 by Barger & Wolen LLP

By Jennifer N. Lee

Financial elder abuse claims are on the rise in California.[1] Companies engaging in financial transactions with people over the age of 65, like insurance or financial services companies that sell products to elders, are increasingly targets of the plaintiff’s bar.

This is largely due to the fact that the California Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) includes a mandatory provision for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs; if the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not to be true) that the defendant committed financial elder abuse, the court must award attorneys’ fees.[2] This fee-shifting provision is unilateral; a prevailing defendant may not recover attorneys’ fees. Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Company, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1186 (2007).

While the ability to recover attorneys’ fees is clear, in some instances, the amount of fees that may reasonably be awarded is not. First, the there is no provision in the EADACPA that provides guidance on the reasonableness of attorneys fees in cases involving financial elder abuse claims. Welfare & Institutions Code sec. 15657.1 does set forth factors to provide guidance on attorneys fees awards:

  • The value of the abuse-related litigation in terms of the quality of life of the elder or dependent adult, and the results obtained;
  • Whether the defendant took reasonable and timely steps to determine the likelihood and the extent of liability; and
  • The reasonableness and timeliness of any written offer in compromise made by a party to the action.

Unfortunately, these factors do not expressly apply to financial elder abuse claims; they expressly apply only to claims involving physical abuse and neglect. The absence of an analogous provision for financial elder abuse appears to be a legislative oversight, since the same types of awards (e.g., attorney fees, punitive damages, etc...) are recoverable for both types of elder abuse claims.

For the time being though, until the Legislature corrects its oversight, plaintiffs’ attorneys prosecuting financial elder abuse claims may continue to argue that their fee claims need not be subject to scrutiny against these factors.

Plaintiffs may even seek an enhancement of attorneys fees, by relying on Civil Code Sec. 3345. This statute allows for trebling to redress unfair or deceptive practices committed against an elder where a statute imposes a fine, penalty or remedy whose purpose or effect is to punish or deter.

Plaintiffs have argued in favor of treble attorneys fees, asserting that the attorneys’ fees provisions of the EADACPA are statutes intended to redress unfair practices committed against an elder and that the purpose of those fee-shifting provisions is to punish or deter further wrongful conduct.

Allowing the recovery of treble attorneys’ fees is problematic. For one, it would violate standards of professionalism prohibiting attorneys from being compensated for work not done or receiving unearned fees. Unfortunately, neither the EADACPA nor sec. 3345 provides any guidance on this issue.

Compounding the lack of statutory guidance, little case law exists to better define the parameters for attorney fee recoveries by plaintiffs. 

Only one case to date discusses the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees for a prevailing plaintiff who successfully asserted a financial elder abuse claim. In In re Levitt, 93 Cal. App. 4th 544 (2002), the Second Appellate District opined that the size of the estate at issue may be a factor in determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees sought. 

In Levitt, a prominent attorney, who was the drafter of the EADACPA, represented a somewhat modest estate to prosecute a financial elder abuse claim and prevailed. He, along with co-counsel, sought attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $127,000 on an estate valued at $370,000. The court reduced the sought-for amount to $110,000, not because of the quality of work done, the amount of time spent or the result obtained, but rather because of the sheer size of the estate in relation to the fees incurred.

The bottom line is that while the EADACPA makes the recovery of attorney fees and costs mandatory, it provides little guidance as what fees may be reasonably recovered. Until further legislative guidance is provided, counsel defending financial elder abuse claims should apply all measures of reasonableness provided for under the rules of professional conduct, the reasonableness factors set forth in the EADACPA for attorneys fees in physical abuse and neglect claims, case law and accepted practices for attorney fee billing to reduce any mandatory attorneys’ fees claims.

[1] "Financial abuse" of elders is defined as the assisting with or taking, secreting, appropriating or retaining of real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 15657.5. By statute, “wrongful use” is imputed if the person or entity knew or should have known that the conduct was likely to be harmful to the elder. With such low and vague pleading standards and because little case law defines “for wrongful use,” an institutional client that engaged in a legitimate business transaction with an elder could be sued for financial elder abuse by a disgruntled beneficiary or a conservator of the estate who disagrees with the suitability of the transaction.

[2] It should be noted that the burden of proof to recover attorneys’ fees is lower than the clear and convincing evidence required to recover punitive damages.

 

Improper Claim Brought by Trust Beneficiaries Can be Remedied Through an Attorney Fee Award Rendered Under the Equitable Power of the Probate Court

Posted on December 14, 2009 by David J. McMahon

 In Rudnick v. Rudnick, 2009 DJDAR 16944 (2009) the Fifth Appellate District decided a novel case involving an attorney fee award in the probate context. The court of appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision granting fees and deducting them from future distributions to certain minority beneficiaries who maintained litigation against a trust in bad faith.

Philip Rudnick, Robert Rudnick, and Milton Rudnick (“Beneficiaries”) were beneficiaries of a Trust. Oscar Rudnick (“Trustee”) was the trustee. The majority of the trust beneficiaries approved the sale of the trust’s principal asset, a large acreage piece of real property. The Trustee petitioned the probate court requesting approval of both the sale and the proposed distribution. The Beneficiaries, who held a minority interest, opposed the petition.

After hearings, the probate court came to the conclusion that the opposition submitted by the Beneficiaries was submitted in bad faith and was solely designed to delay distribution of the sale proceeds. The court awarded approximately $226,000 in attorney fees and costs to the trustee and ordered that the fees were to be deducted against the Beneficiaries future trust distributions. The Beneficiaries then appealed.

The court of appeal affirmed the ruling of the trial court noting that the probate court had the equitable power to make the disputed award. The court distinguished between an award of fees rendered pursuant to the supervisory powers of the court versus the broad equitable powers that a probate court maintains over trusts within its jurisdiction. The court noted that attorneys hired by a trustee to aid the trust are entitled to reasonable fees paid from the trust assets. The issue was whether the burden was improperly shifted to the appellants’ share of the estate. The court found that it was not.

The probate court charged the attorney fees to the appellants’ future trust distributions.  The court of appeal agreed with the result noting that it would be unfair to burden the majority beneficiaries with the payment of the fees that were incurred in responding to the appellants’ bad faith tactics in filing a meritless opposition.

Appellate Court Concludes that Cost Shifting is Calculated from the Date of the Last Urevoked Offer of Judgment

Posted on December 10, 2009 by David J. McMahon

In One Star Inc. v. Staar Surgical Co. the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court concerning the interpretation of the “offer of the judgment” statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 998. 

One Star Inc. (“Star”) was a business representative for Staar Surgical Co. (“Surgical”). Star sued Surgical for breach of contract. In September of 2007, Surgical made an offer of compromise pursuant to CCP § 998. Pursuant to the terms of the statute the offer lapsed 30 days after it was made and not accepted. Two months later Surgical made a second offer. However, Surgical withdrew the offer before the date that it lapsed. Star was successful at trial but recovered less than what Surgical had offered in the first offer of judgment. Surgical then moved to recover the costs pursuant to CCP § 998.

Pursuant to CCP § 998 a party may make an offer in writing to allow judgment to be taken against that party. If the offer is not accepted prior to trial, or within 30 days after it is made, it is deemed withdrawn. If the plaintiff fails to accept the offer and fails to obtain a higher judgment, the plaintiff is required to pay the defendant’s costs, including proper expert costs. For this reason the statute can be a powerful settlement tool in litigation.

The trial court denied Surgical’s motion to recover costs on the ground that the second withdrawn offer extinguished the first offer. Surgical appealed, arguing that its first offer still controlled because it expired before the second offer was made and withdrawn. The court of appeal agreed and reversed.

The appellate court held that under Section 998, when a plaintiff refuses a settlement offer and then obtains a less favorable judgment at trial, the defendant is entitled to those costs incurred after the settlement offer. The later offer operates to extinguish the earlier offer, regardless of its validity. However, there is an exception where the offer of judgment is revoked before expiration of the statutory period. It is no longer treated as a valid 998 offer.

Thus, where a defendant withdraws a second settlement offer, the plaintiff’s recovery is measured against the first settlement offer. In this case, the second offer was revoked and no longer considered a valid offer of judgment. Thus, the court of appeal concluded that the lower court made an error when it ruled that the prior offer was extinguished by the second offer.

 

Insurer's Duty of Good Faith Extends to All Insureds in Multiparty Litigation

Posted on December 1, 2009 by Gary A. Bresee

An insurer's duties become complicated when litigation is pending against more than one of its insureds. In general, an insurer may have a duty to accept a settlement offer made within policy limits, but in the case where more than one of the insureds is sued, how is that duty affected when a CCP Section 998 settlement offer is made to only one of the insureds? 

The question was answered by the First Appellate District in Kauffman v. California State Automobile Association (2009) No. A123494 (unpublished). The son and his parents were all insured under an automobile policy, so when he caused an accident, the plaintiffs sued not only the son, but the parents for "negligent entrustment of the car" to their son.

Plaintiffs then made a policy limits demand to the son alone, using an offer of compromise under CCP Section 998. The offer was rejected. Plaintiffs eventually entered into a complex settlement agreement where the son assigned any rights he may have had against the carrier to the Plaintiffs. In Plaintiffs' subsequent suit against the insurer, the appellate court decided, first, that the 998 Offer did not create the requisite conflict of interest triggering the carrier's duty to appoint separate counsel, or Cumis counsel, under Civil Code section 2860. 

More importantly, the court rejected the argument that the carrier acted in bad faith by refusing to accept the 998 Offer. In fact, the carriers' acceptance of the 998 Offer for the full policy limits would have been bad faith to the remaining insureds; i.e., the parents. The insurer's duties extend to all of its insureds, and the carrier cannot favor one insured over another. Because the 998 Offer was for the full policy limits, agreeing to settle on the son's behalf would have left the parents completely exposed. Consequently, the court found no bad faith under these facts.