Login | April 29, 2025
7Th District grants new trial in family feud over apartment buildings
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: June 14, 2021
The 7th District Court of Appeals has granted a new trial to a doctor who claimed a Mahoning County trial court admitted irrelevant and prejudicial evidence against him in a feud over family-owned apartments.
Defendant-appellant Serhat Erzurum appealed a judgment setting aside two deeds transferring real property to him from his parents, plaintiffs-appellees Halil and Sevim Erzurum, based on jury verdicts finding the transfers were procured through undue influence and duress.
The deeds were executed on Aug. 13, 2018 and Jan. 18, 2019.
Serhat argued the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence regarding a 2003 qui tam action against him, his 2004 and 2012 bankruptcy cases, and his reason for residing in Turkey from 2005 to 2012.
He also argued the jury returned its verdict in less time than was required to review the exhibits admitted into evidence at trial.
Case summary indicates the appellees immigrated to the United States from Turkey and began purchasing apartment buildings in the 1970s. Halil, an engineer, performed his full-time employment during the day, then maintenance at the apartments in the evenings. Sevim managed the daily operations,
The appellees had five children. Appellant, the oldest of the children, is an OB-GYN with a former medical practice in Pennsylvania.
Serpil Erzurum, the oldest daughter, is a pulmonologist, who chairs the Lerner Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. Sergul Erzurum is a local pediatric ophthalmologist. Sevil Erzurum, the youngest daughter, suffers from schizophrenia and lives with appellees. Zafer Erzurum, appellees’ youngest child, was a vascular surgeon who committed suicide in 2013.
The couple owned and operated 25 apartment buildings with 145 rental units worth $3.9 million at the time of trial.
Among the properties were three apartment buildings known as the “Lofts,” which were considered the most valuable of the Erzurum’s apartment buildings.
In 2001, Serhat opened a laser vein clinic in 2001, which grew to 12 locations by 2003. The laser vein clinics employed 10 doctors and generated millions of dollars in gross income. At trial, Serhat testified he was unaware a physician working at one of the clinics was improperly coding procedures, which were then billed to Medicare.
Serhat testified the offending doctor and billing clerk subsequently acted as whistleblowers and filed a qui tam action against him and the clinics under the False Claims Act in 2003. The FCA action did not affect Serhat’s ability to practice medicine.
Default judgment was entered against Serhat and the laser vein centers in the qui tam action for more than $6.3 million in 2009. The outstanding judgment was ultimately satisfied in full for a reduced amount of $119,000, and the laser vein clinics were shuttered as a result of the civil action.
Serhat filed for bankruptcy in 2004 in order to discharge his unsecured debt. However, the bankruptcy case was dismissed due to Serhat’s failure to appear at creditors’ meetings after he, his wife and their two daughters relocated to Turkey in 2005.
According to appellant’s testimony, the family moved to Turkey because Nilgun’s mother, a Turkish citizen, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease.
However, his sister, Serpil, testified he fled the United States because he feared criminal charges would be filed as a result of the federal investigation that resulted from the qui tam action.
Serhat and his family returned to the United States in 2012. He returned to medicine after reactivating his license in 2014. As his parents entered their 90s, Serhat said they began pressuring him to quit his job to manage the apartments.
In November 2017, appellees conveyed the Lofts to Serhat so he could leave his medical practice. Serhat testified Halil entered into an oral agreement to transfer the remaining apartments to him as well.
Halil was 97 years old when he testified at trial. Halil first conceded he signed the deed of his own free will, but later claimed Serhat forced him to sign it.
Halil testified Sevim was afraid of the appellant. Each side accused the other of being abusive.
According to Serhat, his father’s true motivation for setting aside the deeds was to retaliate against him for refusing to underreport income from the apartments for the 2018 tax year.
Following a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of appellees after less than two hours of deliberations on appellee’s claims for undue influence and duress.
The jury found in favor of appellant on appellees’ fraud claims and appellees have not appealed the jury’s verdict on fraud.
On appeal, Serhat filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the allegations of Medicare fraud, his family’s move to Turkey, and his bankruptcy petitions.
He claimed jurors were predisposed to ignore the evidence supporting his defense based on his characterization by appellees as an “expatriate criminal” and a Medicare cheat. The trial court denied both motions.
Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit the introduction of the 2003 qui tam action and the 2004 and 2012 bankruptcy filings.
In his opinion, 7th District Judge David A. D’Apolito noted two completely different narratives were offered at trial.
“Appellees and their witnesses described appellant as the scheming black sheep of an otherwise accomplished and wealthy family, who badgered and threatened his isolated and mentally-impaired elderly parents to transfer ownership of the apartments,” the judge wrote. “Appellant and his witnesses, on the other hand, described appellant as the dutiful oldest son of parents who reneged on their promise to transfer ownership of the apartments, in order to punish him for acting in accord with state and federal law. Because there is compelling evidence in the record to support both narratives, the verdicts turned exclusively on the juror’s credibility determinations.
“… Appellees’ counsel characterized appellant as a criminal who defrauded the federal government and fled from prosecution in his opening statement. As a consequence, the jurors, as the sole arbiters of the credibility of the witnesses, were predisposed to distrust appellant’s testimony. The testimony of appellant, who was the first witness to testify, was likewise peppered with unsubstantiated accusations of fraud and speculation of a federal criminal investigation, which, based on the record in this case, never occurred.
“Because the foregoing evidence was both irrelevant and prejudicial, we find that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the challenged evidence.”
Appellate judges Gene Donofrio and Carol Ann Robb concurred.
The case is cited Erzurum v. Erzurum, 2021-Ohio-1162.