This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16
- 0403 In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of:

Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi, Decedent Filed August 8, 2016 Affirmed Larkin , Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27

- CV

- 12

- 24205

Hosameldin Ibrahim Imbabi, Gold R iver, California (pro se appellant) Warren E. Peterson, PFB Law , P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Nariman Sirag Elsayed K ha lil) Lawrence M. Hall, Hall Law, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota (f or respondent Trust for Nadir I brahim Ombabi 1 )
Considered and decided by Larkin , Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M. , Judge; and Klaphake , Judge

. 

1 The case caption in the district court identifies the decedent as “Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi , ” and that name is used in the caption on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01 (“The title of the action shall not be changed in consequence of the appeal.”). However, the parties’ briefs and the district court’s distribution order identify the decedent as “Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi.” We use that spelling in the body of this opinion.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N LARKIN , Judge In this pro se appeal, a ppellant challenges the district court’s distribution of wrongful

- death settlement proceeds

. We affirm. FACTS Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi was a taxi driver in Minnesota and a Minnesota resident. He married respondent Nariman Sirag Elsayed Kh a li l in Sudan , under the Islamic law of Sudan. He died in an acc ident in Minnesota. His estate brought a wrongful

- death claim, which settle d for $183,000 in Minnesota. After the settlement, the trustee for Ombabi’s next of kin petitioned for an order
deter mining the proportionate pecuniary loss of persons entitled to the settlement proceeds under Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (2014), and for distribution of the proceeds

. The district court held a hearing on the petition

. Ombabi’s brother, appellant Hosame ldin Ibrahim Imbabi, argued that the district court should apply Islamic l aw and, after payment of
expenses from the settlement proceeds, distribute 25% o f the proceeds to respondent , 16.7% to Ombabi’s mother’s estate, and the remaining proceeds to Ombabi’ s siblings, with the males to receive “twice the share of the female.” The district court reject ed appellant’s request for application of Islamic law and
instead applied Minn. Stat. § 573 .02, subd. 1. The district court issued a distribution order providing for payment of attorney fees, litigation expenses, funeral costs, and trustee services. The order directed the trustee to distribute the remaining settlement proceeds to respondent

. The district court determined tha t appellant was entitled to $ 11,920 for his3

services as the prior trustee and that he had already been paid this amount

. This pro se appeal follows. D E C I S I O N Appellant asserts that (1) the district court judge inappropriately e xpressed his personal opinion regarding the case b efore the hearing, (2) the district court “failed from the beginning to determine the points of issue which would have

. . . helped the court to define in particular which law to be applied on the dispute and that contradicts the stat ut e of Conflicts of La w,” (3) the district court did not “mention or remind the parties to present their witnesses to affirm the plaintiff statements or to disprove it,” (4) the district court did not allow appellant to cross

- examine witnesses, and (5) the “fact that there [wer e] no witnesses makes it very challenging” for the district court to have assessed credibility. Appellant further asserts t hat “ the principles of the private international law should have been applied from the beginning since the law of all parties (the d ecedent, his widow and decedent [’s] next of kin) is the Islamic Law and they are all Muslims and follow the specifics of the religion.” This court does not presume error on appeal. White v. Minn. Dep’ t of Nat. Res. , 567 N.W.2d 724, 734 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997). The burden is on appellant to show that the district court erred and that prejudice resulted. See Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc. , 306 Minn. 352, 356, 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (1975) (stating that to prevail on app eal, an appellant must show both error and prejudice resulting from the error). And “[a] n appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record for appeal. ” Custom Farm Servs., Inc. v. Collins , 306 Minn. 571, 572, 238 N.W.2d 608, 609 (1976)

.4

“ Althoug h some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules. ” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001)

. In this case, a pp ellant d id not provide a transcript. This court therefore cannot resolve issues that re quire a transcript, such as whether the district court judge made statements indicating that he had predeter mined the outcome of the case or whether the district court erred by refusing to allow cross

- examination of certain witnesses. See
Cu stom Farm , 306 Minn. at 572, 238 N.W.2d at 609 (“ Because of the absence of a transcript of the district court proceedings, we cannot consider two of [appellant’s alleged errors].”). Moreover, “[a] n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by
any argum ent or authorities in appellant’ s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling,
Inc. , 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997) (quotation omitted). None of appellant’ s assertions of er ror are adequately supported by legal argument or citation to legal authority. For ex a mple, appellant’s main assertion of error appears to be that the district
court should have a pplied Sudanese Islamic law instead of Minnesota l aw when distributing the wrongful

- death settlement proceeds. But a ppellant does not explain why , other than stating, “[h e ] strongly believe [s] that the principles of the private international law should have been applied from the beginning since the law of all parties .

. . is the Islamic L aw and they are all Muslims and follow the specifics of the religion.” A nd5

appellant’s citations to legal authority are not on point. He cites Minn. Stat. § 14.57 (2014), which governs initiation, decision, and agreement to arbitrate a contested case proceeding under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, and M inn. Stat. §§ 541.30, .33 (2014) , which regard determination of the limitation period when there is a conflict of law. Appellant also asserts that the district court erred by refusing to honor a legal declaration issued by the Sudanese Family Court in Khartoum rega rding distribution of the wrongful

- death settlement proceeds under Sudanese Islamic law. Once again, appellant does not support this assertion with adequate legal argument or authority . Moreover , given appellant’s failure to provide a transcript o n appea l and the district court’s order for
distributio n, it is not clear to us that this issue was raised and determined in the district court. Generally, as an error

- correcting court, this court does not consider an issue that was not raised and determined in district court. See Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitte d)). The district court was asked to determine the proportionate pecuniary loss of persons entitled to recover under Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1, and to distribute the wrongful

- death settlement proceeds accordingly. Section 573.02, subdivision 1 , provi des :

The recovery in the action is the amount the jury deems fair and just in reference to the pecuniary loss resulting from the death, and shall be for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin, proportionate to the pecuniary loss severally suffered by the death. The court then determines the proportionate pecuniary loss of the persons entitled to the recovery and orders distribution accordingly. Funeral6 expenses and any demand for the support of the decedent allowed by the court having ju risdiction of the action, are first deducted and paid. The district court found that “there is no credible evidence to prove Mr. Ombabi’s mother, brother, or sisters experienced a pecuniary loss, or more importantly what that pecuniary loss is, because of Mr. Ombabi’s passing.” Accordingly, the district court ordered that 100% of s ettlement proceeds remaining after deduction of attorney fees, litigation expenses, funeral costs, and truste e services be distributed to respondent. We have reviewed the limi ted record and considered appellant’s assertions of error. Given the recor d before this court, we do not discern obvious prejudicial error

. Appellant therefore is not en titled to relief

. Affirmed.