This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

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 River, California (pro se appellant)

Warren E. Peterson, PFB Law, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Nariman Sirag 

Elsayed Khalil)

Lawrence M. Hall, Hall Law, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent Trust for Nadir 

Ibrahim Ombabi1)

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, appellant 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 Khalil in Sudan, under the Islamic law of 

Sudan. He died in an accident in Minnesota. His estate brought a wrongful-death claim, 

which settled for $183,000 in Minnesota. 

After the settlement, the trustee for Ombabi’s next of kin petitioned for an order 

determining 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 Hosameldin Ibrahim 

Imbabi, argued that the district court should apply Islamic law and, after payment of 

expenses from the settlement proceeds, distribute 25% of 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 rejected 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 that appellant was entitled to $11,920 for his 
3

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 expressed his 

personal opinion regarding the case before 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 statute 

of Conflicts of Law,” (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 [were] no 

witnesses makes it very challenging” for the district court to have assessed credibility. 

Appellant further asserts that “the principles of the private international law should have 

been applied from the beginning since the law of all parties (the decedent, 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 appeal, 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

“Although 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, appellant did not provide a transcript. This court therefore cannot

resolve issues that require a transcript, such as whether the district court judge made 

statements indicating that he had predetermined the outcome of the case or whether the 

district court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of certain witnesses. See

Custom 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 argument 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 error are adequately supported by legal argument or citation to legal 

authority. For example, appellant’s main assertion of error appears to be that the district 

court should have applied Sudanese Islamic law instead of Minnesota law when 

distributing the wrongful-death settlement proceeds. But appellant does not explain why, 

other than stating, “[he] 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 Law and they are all Muslims and follow the specifics of the religion.” And 
5

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 Minn. 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 regarding 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 on appeal and the district court’s order for 

distribution, 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 omitted)).

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, provides: 

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. Funeral 
6

expenses and any demand for the support of the decedent 

allowed by the court having jurisdiction 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 settlement proceeds remaining after deduction of attorney fees, 

litigation expenses, funeral costs, and trustee services be distributed to respondent. 

We have reviewed the limited record and considered appellant’s assertions of error. 

Given the record before this court, we do not discern obvious prejudicial error. Appellant 

therefore is not entitled to relief.

Affirmed.