Lerdahl v. Milber CA1/5
A159167
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Watts sued Diane Milber and family members for conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, and financial elder abuse after Diane, his attorney-in-fact, transferred two annuities into a trust naming her family as beneficiaries.
- In February 2018 the probate court voided the Gold Lake Trust as presumptively the product of fraud or undue influence and ordered the trust assets returned to Watts; the probate ruling said it did not address civil liability or damages in the pending lawsuit.
- In December 2018 the Milbers served a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer for $75,000; Watts did not accept.
- At trial the jury found Diane liable on various theories (fraud, undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, financial abuse) but also found Watts suffered no harm and awarded $0 in damages; the court entered judgment for defendants and allowed costs to be determined.
- Watts moved for attorney fees under Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.5 (Elder Abuse Act); the Milbers sought expert witness fees under CCP § 998. The trial court denied Watts’s fee request (finding no proven harm/causation) and denied the Milbers’ expert-fee request as discretionary under CCP § 998 (finding the $75,000 offer not reasonable or likely to be accepted). Both sides appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: Watts was not entitled to attorney fees because he failed to prove the requisite harm/causation for financial abuse liability; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Milbers’ expert witness fees under CCP § 998.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watts) | Defendant's Argument (Milbers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watts is entitled to attorney fees under Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.5 for financial elder abuse | He proved financial abuse and thus is entitled to mandatory fee award under § 15657.5 | Liability under § 15657.5 requires proof of harm and causation; jury found no harm/damages | Court: Fees require proof the defendant is "liable for financial abuse," which includes harm and causation; Watts failed to prove harm, so no fees awarded |
| Whether the Milbers are entitled to expert witness costs under CCP § 998 after their $75,000 offer | N/A (Milbers sought costs; Watts opposed) | The 998 offer was reasonable and thus entitled them to discretionary expert witness costs | Court: Trial judge reasonably exercised discretion to deny expert witness fees because the offer was not reasonably likely to be accepted given case circumstances (no abuse of discretion); Watts did not waive challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Arace v. Medico Investments, LLC, 48 Cal.App.5th 977 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (upheld attorney‑fee award where jury found defendant liable for financial abuse and plaintiff proved harm/causation)
- Perlin v. Fountain View Management, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 657 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (construing Elder Abuse Act fee provisions as requiring proof of liability, including causation)
- Berkley v. Dowds, 152 Cal.App.4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (harm and causation are elements required for elder‑abuse liability)
- Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Cal.App.4th 1475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (standards for reasonableness and good faith of CCP § 998 offers and trial court discretion to award expert witness costs)
- Pineda v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc., 112 Cal.App.3d 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (no abuse of discretion in denying expert witness fees where offer not reasonable)
- Najera v. Huerta, 191 Cal.App.4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for discretionary rulings: overturn only for abuse of discretion resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice)
- Ringler Associates, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 80 Cal.App.4th 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (waiver doctrines and presumptions against finding waiver in doubtful cases)
- Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc., 117 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (tort principle that defendants are liable only if their conduct was the legal cause of plaintiff's injury)