Monday, August 31, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Financial Elder Abuse Does Not Require Economic Profit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A wealth adviser who gambled with the portfolio of a client, now age 90, and caused assets to dwindle from a value of $2,616,421 in August 2019 to $475,099.23 in December 2020, can be held liable for financial elder abuse though he did not pocket any of the property, Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has declared in affirming a $6 million award plus three-quarters of a million dollars in attorney fees.
The holding came Thursday in an unpublished opinion by Justice Gregory J. Weingart.
The issue was not whether there was liability to Michael Horner on the part of George G. Strong III and his financial Pasadena management company, Strong Wealth Management, but whether Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.30, a part of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, applies. That section provides for a doubling of damages.
Arguing that the act does not apply, the defendants said in their brief on appeal that the court should upset the $6,082,676.40 recovery—comprised of §5,112,080.40 in doubled damages and $970,596 in prejudgment interest—plus an attorney-fee award of $740,859.20. They declared that the court “should order the trial court to enter a new judgment of $ 3,041,338.20 (compensatory damages of $2,556,040.20 and prejudgment interest of $ 485,298) plus costs.”
Wording of Statute
Sec. 15610.30 provides:
“(a) ‘Financial abuse’ of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: [¶] (1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.”
Subd. (c) says that a violation occurs “when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right.”
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jon R. Takasugi found that Strong “did not take or retain any of...Horner’s property nor did he obtain any benefit from his actions,” but was nonetheless guilty of financial elder abuse because it is sufficient “that Plaintiff have been deprived of property.” Weingardt agreed, saying:
“Although it is hardly surprising that most people who commit financial elder abuse do so for their own material benefit, nothing in the text of section 15610.30 implies that that must be their motivation. As Horner points out, if Strong’s theory was accepted, it would mean that a defendant who threw an elders property into a lit fireplace would not be liable for elder abuse because the defendant would have obtained no financial benefit.”
Financial Incentive
He commented:
“Although Strong did not gain financially by causing Horner to lose money, he had a financial incentive to take the actions he did. Unless it was essentially compulsive gambling, the only explanation for Strong’s increasingly desperate options trading appears to have been a desire to recover from the earlier losses in the hope of retaining Horner’s business, which would earn Strong greater fees from Horner in the future.”
Weingart said in a footnote:
“Strong argues that if we reverse the court’s finding that he committed financial elder abuse we must also reverse the order awarding Horner attorney’s fees. Because we reject Strong’s arguments on financial elder abuse, we likewise reject his claim regarding attorney’s fees.”
The opinion agrees with the defendants that prejudgment interest should be computed based on the award before doubling, directing that it be reduced from $970.596 to $485,298. Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild and Justice Michelle C. Kim joined in the decision.
The case is Horner v. Strong Wealth Management, B337039.
Representing Horner were former Court of Appeal Justice Margaret M. Grignon and her daughter, Anne M. Grignon, along with Kevin K. Fitzgerald of the firm of Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald. Arguing unsuccessfully for Strong and his firm were Michael C. Lieb and Zoe M. Vallier of Ervin Cohen & Jessup.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company