Elder Financial Abuse Laws by State: Comparing Statutory Protections Nationwide

Publication Date January 19, 2026 in Elder Financial Abuse, Elder Financial Exploitation Guide for Attorneys

Elder financial exploitation is a national problem, but the legal remedies available vary significantly from state to state. Some jurisdictions have enacted comprehensive statutory frameworks with enhanced damages, mandatory attorney fees, and care custodian presumptions. Others rely primarily on common law remedies.

This guide compares key statutory protections across major jurisdictions, using California’s framework as a reference point. Understanding these variations is essential for attorneys practicing in elder law, trust litigation, or estate planning.

The California Model

California has one of the most developed elder abuse statutory frameworks in the nation. Key provisions include:

Care Custodian Presumption (Probate Code §21380): Donative transfers to caregivers are presumed the product of fraud or undue influence
Double Damages (Probate Code §859): Bad faith taking triggers liability for twice the value recovered
Mandatory Attorney Fees (Welfare & Institutions Code §15657.5): Prevailing plaintiffs must be awarded fees
Disinheritance Penalty (Probate Code §259): Abusers are deemed to have predeceased the victim
Property Recovery (Probate Code §850): Specific procedure for recovering property belonging to trusts or estates

Many other states have adopted some or all of these provisions. The table below summarizes the current statutory landscape.

State-by-State Comparison Table

State	Care Custodian Presumption	Enhanced Damages	Mandatory Atty Fees	Disinheritance	Key Statute
California	Yes	Double	Yes	Yes	W&I §15600+
Florida	Yes	Available	Discretionary	Yes	Ch. 825
Texas	Limited	Available	Discretionary	No	HR §48.002
Illinois	Yes	Treble	Yes	No	FEEPA Ch. 720
New York	No	Limited	No	No	SSL §473+
Arizona	Limited	Available	Discretionary	No	ARS §46-451+
Nevada	Yes	Double	Yes	Yes	NRS 41.1395
Washington	No	Treble	Yes	No	RCW 74.34
Oregon	No	Triple	Yes	No	ORS 124.100
Colorado	No	Limited	No	No	CRS §26-3.1

Note: This table provides general guidance only. Statutory language varies and should be verified for current applicability. “Limited” indicates partial provisions or common law presumptions that may apply in certain circumstances.

Key Takeaways for Multi-State Practice

States with the strongest protections (California, Illinois, Nevada, Florida) provide multiple overlapping remedies that make elder abuse cases economically viable. In these jurisdictions, contingency practice is feasible even for moderate-sized cases.

States without comprehensive frameworks (New York, Colorado) require practitioners to rely more heavily on common law remedies. Cases in these jurisdictions may be more difficult to pursue on contingency unless damages are substantial.

Interstate issues. When exploitation crosses state lines, choice of law questions arise. The state where the elder was domiciled, where documents were executed, or where assets are located may each have claims to governing law. Forum selection can significantly affect available remedies.

Frequently Asked Questions About Elder Financial Exploitation

California, Illinois, Nevada, and Florida have among the strongest statutory frameworks, including care custodian presumptions, enhanced damages (double or treble), and mandatory attorney fee provisions. Washington and Oregon also provide treble damages.

No. Care custodian presumptions—which shift the burden of proof when caregivers receive transfers from elders—exist in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, and several other states. In states without these presumptions, undue influence must be proven through traditional evidentiary methods.

Multi-state cases raise complex choice-of-law issues. Generally, the law of the state where the elder was domiciled or where key events occurred (document execution, asset transfer) will apply. Forum selection can significantly affect available remedies, so consulting an attorney experienced in interstate elder abuse litigation is advisable.

In states without mandatory fee-shifting, attorney fees may still be recoverable under contract provisions (if a trust or other instrument authorizes fees), equitable exceptions, or as an element of certain damages claims. The availability varies significantly by jurisdiction and claim type.