UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

Anisa Nazarova,

Debtor.

/

Case No.: 21-17336-MAM

Chapter 12 

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED APPLICATION FOR FEES (ECF NO. 86)

AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL FEE APPLICATION (ECF NO. 93)

THIS MATTER came before the Court at an evidentiary hearing on December 

16, 2021 at 9:30 a.m., later continued to January 28, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. (the 

“Evidentiary Hearing”), upon the following matters: 

• Creditor, Deer Run Property Owners' Association’s Motion to Dismiss 

Case With Prejudice for Bad Faith Filing, or in the alternative, Motion 

for Relief from Stay for Two Year Prospective Relief (ECF No. 40);

• Creditor, Fidelity National Title Group's Motion to Dismiss Case With 

Prejudice (ECF No. 49);

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on March 8, 2022.

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 8
2

• Debtor's Motion to Receive Post-Petition Retainer (ECF No. 60) and the 

Objection thereto (ECF No. 81);

• Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record by David Merrill (ECF No. 

72); and

• Application for Compensation for David Merrill, Attorney for Debtor 

(ECF No. 78) and Amended Application (ECF No. 86).

At the Evidentiary Hearing, Attorney David Merrill, in his present capacity as 

attorney for Debtor pending approval of his withdrawal as counsel, sought fees for 

services rendered in this Bankruptcy Case. This Order addresses Merrill’s request 

for fees for his law firm (named The Associates), as amended (ECF Nos. 78 and 86) 

(the “Application”). In support of the Application, Merrill filed a supplemental request

for fees at ECF Nos. 93 (the “Supplement”) and a memorandum regarding the request 

as ECF No. 98 (the “Fee Memorandum”). 

BACKGROUND

Several parties in interest objected to the Application and the Supplement, 

including Lilia Belkova Russo (“Belkova”), Debtor’s daughter. Belkova has previously 

been a debtor herself in numerous bankruptcy filings involving the same real 

property (the “Property”) that was at issue in this bankruptcy case (the “Bankruptcy 

Case”) and asserted impassioned arguments regarding Merrill’s representation. Most 

of Belkova’s arguments arose from the completion of a foreclosure sale involving the 

Property, which left her distressed. 

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 8
3

Counsel to various creditors and the Chapter 12 Trustee all interposed 

objections (the “Objections”) to Merrill’s representation of Debtor in this Bankruptcy 

Case on an entirely different basis. These parties collectively argued that the 

Bankruptcy Case itself had no merit and should not have been filed. The gist of their

arguments, essentially, was that Merrill should have declined to represent Debtor in 

a case that appeared to have been filed in bad faith. 

Merrill countered the Objections on two primary bases: first, that all debtors 

deserve at least basic representation, even if the Court ultimately dismisses the 

bankruptcy case, and second, that the services he performed were both necessary and 

beneficial to the estate. Merrill pointed out that he was brought in after the filing of 

the case and thus did not participate in the decision to file; rather, he merely aided 

Debtor in her attempts to make an existing chapter 12 case feasible. Merrill further 

argued that, when the full scope of the underlying facts became clear and his 

relationships with Belkova and Debtor deteriorated, he filed an appropriate motion 

to withdraw. 

In the Fee Memorandum, Merrill addressed concerns regarding his lack of 

filing a retention application upon his initial engagement. In support of a fee award 

absent prior court approval of his retention, Merrill listed prior chapter 12 cases in 

this district in which no formal retention application was filed. 

ANALYSIS

A. Was a Retention Application Necessary?

The Court first considers the question of whether, in a chapter 12 bankruptcy 

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 8
4

case in this district, counsel to the debtor must file a retention application. The short 

answer is no, it is not required under the Court’s existing local rules as of the date of 

entry of this Order. That being said, it is a good idea to do so as a general practice.1

Filing a retention application at the outset of a case provides all parties in 

interest with disclosure regarding the nature of services to be provided, rate to be 

charged, and the opportunity to object to any aspects of retention that the parties find 

questionable or unnecessary. In this instance, Merrill provided disclosure of his 

retention and retainer on Bankruptcy Form 2030 (ECF No. 45). Because no other 

requirement presently exists under local rules for the employment of debtor’s counsel 

in a chapter 12 case, the Court will not penalize Merrill for his failure to file a 

retention application. 

B. Were the Services Necessary?

The Court agrees with Merrill that any debtor, even those with blemished 

records, can benefit from expert legal advice. As Merrill pointed out, he did not 

encourage Debtor to file, nor did he advise her to do so. He was asked to step in after 

her prior counsel withdrew and, at the time of retention, knew very little about what 

had transpired prior to his engagement. 

Although it is tempting to second-guess whether Merrill should have dug more 

deeply into the background facts prior to agreeing to the representation, that sort of 

1 Although not required in chapter 12 cases in this district, the Court recommends that practitioners in future 

chapter 12 cases file a retention application to avoid (or at least minimize) disputes regarding fees 

after the work has already been performed.

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 8
5

thinking could have unanticipated consequences. Many debtors have complicated and 

somewhat unsavory financial histories. Others have unique circumstances, like 

family members who have previously filed for bankruptcy relief. Some are serial filers 

themselves. An even smaller number are foreign residents. The existence of many of 

those same factors in this case did not make Merrill’s representation automatically 

inappropriate. As a result, the Court concludes that at least some portion of Merrill’s 

services were necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. 

C. Were the Fees Reasonable?

To determine the compensable amount of services rendered, the Court 

reviewed the invoices attached to the Application, the Supplement, and the Fee 

Memorandum, as well as the full record of this Bankruptcy Case. Having done so, 

the Court determines that Merrill should be compensated for all services described 

in the Application and the Supplement. 

In arriving at this determination, the Court observes, perhaps academically, 

that approval of the Application and Supplement does not equate to collectability for 

the fees described therein. Debtor is a foreign national whose only known major asset

within the territorial United States was a beneficial interest in the Property, which 

was recently sold at a foreclosure sale. Debtor’s daughter, Belkova, provided Debtor’s 

initial retainer and appears unlikely to be willing to satisfy Debtor’s obligation out of 

her own personal funds. Despite these practical hurdles, the Court believes that it is 

appropriate to approve both the Application and the Supplement over the objections 

of the Chapter 12 Trustee, Debtor’s creditors, and Belkova.

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 8
6

Belkova supplied two primary objections to approval. First, Belkova took issue 

with adjustments to prospective filings that she supplied to Merrill on Debtor’s 

behalf. Second, Belkova contended that Merrill “guaranteed” a positive outcome in 

this Bankruptcy Case. Neither argument has merit. 

As Debtor’s counsel, Merrill was required to evaluate the accuracy and 

propriety of filings prior to submission, and likewise to review prior filings for the 

same characteristics. One of the major functions of counsel in any bankruptcy case is 

ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of any representations to the Court. The 

record indicates that Merrill did his best to review all prior filings and provide 

innovative legal arguments despite difficult facts, all of which had to be disclosed. 

Merrill refuted Belkova’s contention that he guaranteed a positive outcome 

and the Court finds Merrill’s testimony plausible. Merrill is an experienced 

practitioner who understands that this Court rules as it must under the law. Merrill 

likewise indicated through his testimony that he believed (as the Court does) that no 

attorney can prospectively “guarantee” what that result will be in a disputed matter. 

Belkova was visibly distressed and emotional at times while testifying during 

the Evidentiary Hearing. It was evident that the foreclosure sale of the Property, the 

issuance of the Certificate of Title, and the sheriff’s execution of a writ of possession 

affected her deeply. Taking all factors into account, the Court concludes that 

Belkova’s extreme anguish over the loss of the Property likely prompted at least some 

of her protestations regarding Merrill’s compensation for legal services in this 

Bankruptcy Case. 

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 8
7

Finally, the Court turns once again to the objections by Debtors’ creditors and 

the Chapter 12 Trustee that Merrill should not be compensated for his representation 

of Debtor in her Bankruptcy Case. Those objections appeared to be borne out of the 

frustration of dealing with yet another bankruptcy case involving the Property. The 

Property’s twisting and unfortunate saga through the bankruptcy courts and state 

courts, however, does not diminish the reality that all parties were best served by 

competent representation for all parties in this Bankruptcy Case. 

This is precisely why the Court declined to grant Merrill’s request to withdraw 

prior to the Evidentiary Hearing. Having required Merrill to remain in place to 

ensure the benefit of representation for Debtor at the Evidentiary Hearing, the Court 

declines to now penalize Merrill and The Associates for Merrill’s efforts.

Therefore, the Court, having considered the Application, the Supplements, the 

Fee Memorandum, the Objections, and the full record of this Bankruptcy Case,

hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Application and Supplement are each APPROVED on a final basis.

All objections to the Application, Supplement, and the Fee 

Memorandum are OVERRULED. 

2. The Associates, in its capacity as counsel to Debtor, is awarded (i) final 

fees in the amount of $17,258.00 and (ii) final expenses in the amount 

of $382.64 for a total final award of $17,640.64 (the “Fee Award”) in this 

case.

3. In approving the Fee Award, the Court has evaluated the factors set 

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 8
8

forth in In re: First Colonial Corp., 544 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1977); and 

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) 

and finds that the amounts awarded herein represent reasonable

compensation for actual and necessary services rendered and expenses 

incurred by The Associates during this Bankruptcy Case as counsel to 

Debtor.

4. Upon entry of this order, The Associates is authorized to apply the 

balance of any retainer to the Fee Award. 

###

Copies furnished to: 

David Merrill, counsel to Debtor

Attorney Merrill is directed to serve this Order upon all interested parties in 

accordance with all applicable rules. 

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 107 Filed 03/08/22 Page 8 of 8