Court Opinion

ID: 9749431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:43:06.444195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:48.374433
License: Public Domain

VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J.
I concur, but write separately to distance myself from the majority’s suggestion that there is a need for legislative action in this area. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 550-551.)
As our opinion explains, the trial court has broad discretion to determine an appropriate fee in cases such as these, and is authorized to consider all relevant factors, including the time involved, the results obtained, and the size of the abused elder’s estate. In the sound exercise of that discretion, the court can (as it did in these cases) consider the fact that a greater award of attorneys’ fees, even where earned, would deplete the abused elder’s estate to the detriment of the elder and, ultimately, to his heirs. I would not risk a diminution of that discretion, and would leave well enough alone.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 29, 2001, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied January 29, 2002.