[Turkey][Attorneys fees and costs]
In Savata v Edil, 2023 WL 2707473 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2023) Petitioner Mehmet Fatih Savata filed this
case seeking return of his minor child to Turkey. On June 9, 2022, the court
granted petitioner’s unopposed motion for default judgment against respondent
Banu Esin Edil, and both parties agreed that their minor child would return to
his residence in Turkey by June 18, 2022.
The Court
observed that ICARA requires courts to award “necessary expenses” incurred by a
prevailing petitioner, including legal fees, costs of care and transportation
fees “related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes
that such order would be clearly inappropriate.” 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3). Petitioner
requested an award of $35,078 in attorney fees and costs, which included:
attorney fees totaling $22,554.50 to Boardman & Clark, LLP; $8,850 in
expert witness fees; $1,361.44 to a law firm in Turkey; and $2,312.20 in costs.
Petitioner later amended his request to add an additional $5,077.50 in fees
incurred in answering respondent’s objections to his fee request, for a new
total of $40,033.14. Respondent did not oppose petitioner’s initial fee request
of $22,554.50 to compensate Boardman & Clark nor petitioner’s request for
costs. However, respondent contended that petitioner’s request for expert
witness fees and foreign attorney fees are unreasonable, unsupported and
excessive. Having reviewed petitioner’s documentation and the parties’
submissions, the court concluded that petitioner’s requested costs and fees are
reasonable and reflect necessary expenses incurred in obtaining the return of
his child for the following reasons: Petitioner’s request for $2,312.20 in costs was
reasonable and supported by adequate documentation. Petitioner adequately
supported his request for $8,850 in expert witness fees for Attorney Mert
Yalcin, who provided a report regarding how the Turkish courts interpret and
implement legal custody rights for purposes of the Hague Convention. The Seventh
Circuit has explained that it may be appropriate in this type of case for the
petitioner to retain a foreign attorney to explain custody rights under the
laws of the other, relevant country. See Norinder v. Fuentes, 657 F.3d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 2011). Similarly, petitioner’s requested fees for
another Turkish attorney, Nazan Seref, were reasonable. As petitioner
explained, he paid Attorney Seref to assist him in filing an application with
the Turkish Ministry requesting the return of his minor child, as well as
providing petitioner’s Wisconsin-based counsel information on petitioner’s
custodial status under Turkish law. This relatively small amount of $1,361.44,
which Attorney Seref charged as a flat fee, appeared reasonable for that work,
and again, there was no dispute that petitioner paid that fee. Petitioner’s requested fees of $27,632 in
attorney fees to Boardman & Clark were based on a reasonable number of work
hours at reasonable hourly rates, ranging from $245 to $405 for the attorneys
who worked on the case; $195 for the paralegals; and $210 for a law clerk. Respondent
conceded the reasonableness of Boardman’s original fee request of over $22,500,
and offered no basis for finding that Boardman’s additional fees were neither
reasonably incurred nor paid by petitioner. Finally, respondent failed to show that an order awarding
petitioner’s actual fees and costs would be “clearly inappropriate.” See
22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3). Instead,
she argued in her brief that a fee award would impose a financial hardship
impairing her ability to care for the parties’ minor child. In some situations,
a court may deny or reduce a fee award if it would prevent the
respondent-parent from caring for the child. Norinder, 657 F.3d at 536. However,
respondent submitted no evidence to support her bald assertion of financial
hardship, such as an affidavit or financial records. In contrast, petitioner
submitted evidence showing that respondent is qualified as a physician in
Turkey, and she owned property in both Wisconsin and Istanbul. Based on this
evidence, the court concluded that respondent has failed to meet her burden of
showing that she or the parties’ minor child would be negatively affected by
petitioner’s requested fee award. Petitioner’s requests for costs and fees were
granted in full.
No comments:
Post a Comment