Culculoglu v. Culculoglu (Child Custody)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 13, 2017
Docket69930
StatusUnpublished

This text of Culculoglu v. Culculoglu (Child Custody) (Culculoglu v. Culculoglu (Child Custody)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Culculoglu v. Culculoglu (Child Custody), (Neb. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BURHAN CULCULOGLU, No. 69930 Appellant, vs. MICHELLE L. CULCULOGLU, FILED Respondent. JAN 1 3 2017 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT • \ By DEPIffY CLF-R

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is a pro se appeal from an order awarding attorney fees in a post-divorce decree proceeding. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Linda Marquis, Judge. In the parties' divorce decree, appellant was ordered to pay respondent attorney fees from his retirement account within 90 days. Appellant then liquidated his retirement account without paying the attorney fees. As a result, appellant was held in contempt and ordered to pay respondent $18,466.89 in attorney fees that she had incurred in enforcing the divorce decree. The district court specifically concluded that the attorney fees award was a further sanction for appellant's contempt This appeal followed. In his fast track statement, appellant failed to present any argument concerning the award of attorney fees. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (providing that this court need not consider claims that are not cogently argued or supported by relevant authority). Moreover, the district court had authority to award respondent attorney fees under NRS 22.100(3) and the court considered the reasonableness of the attorney fees

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

101 1947A 40Sip j1-012qS pursuant to the Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (1969), factors. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees. Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622,119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (explaining that this court reviews an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

J. Gibbons

Pickering

cc: Hon. Linda Marquis, District Judge, Family Court Division Burhan Culculoglu Pecos Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194M e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller v. Wilfong
119 P.3d 727 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2005)
Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank
455 P.2d 31 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1969)
Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant
130 P.3d 1280 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Culculoglu v. Culculoglu (Child Custody), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culculoglu-v-culculoglu-child-custody-nev-2017.