Representative Cases

El-Ghazzawy Law Offices have successfully represented clients before the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court more than 30 times. Their representative cases follow:

Perrill v. Perrill, No. A19-1792 (Minn. App. 2020). In this marital dissolution, wife argued she was entitled to an award of permanent spousal maintenance and an equal share of assets husband asserted were nonmarital (or alternatively, an award of husband’s nonmarital property). Wife had worked early in the marriage but left her employment to be a full-time homemaker; she later resumed employment with the same company at a significantly higher salary than before her departure. Husband had a minority ownership interest in two family-owned businesses as a result of nonmarital gifting by his parents. He worked for the older company in a variety of positions, but never worked for the newer company, SC. The older company lost value over the course of the marriage. SC was the brainchild of husband’s younger sibling, who over the years transformed it from a small, early internet bulletin board service to a provider of secure payment transactions for businesses. Over the course of the marriage SC increased dramatically in value, and was eventually sold. Wife argued that because the two family enterprises shared physical plant, customer lists and back office functions, the increase in SC’s value over the course of the marriage should be deemed attributable to husband’s active efforts despite his not working for SC in either a formal or informal capacity. On appeal the trial court’s decision denying wife spousal maintenance, an equal portion of husband’s interest in SC, or an award of nonmarital property was upheld. At time of dissolution wife’s income was slightly below husband’s, and what she portrayed as the parties’ upper class lifestyle occurred only toward the end of the marriage as a result of husband’s nonmarital proceeds from the sale of SC and gifting from Husband’s parents. The court further denied wife’s alternative claim for an award of husband’s nonmarital property on the basis of unfair hardship, finding an absence of a severe disparity in the parties’ financial circumstances.
Gill v. Gill, No. A19-1556 (Minn. App. 2020). Upon remand from the Supreme Court, the trial court classified the earnouts as wholly marital property but allocated them unequally (approx. 58% to Husband) in recognition of Husband’s efforts in achieving the earnouts. Wife argued unsuccessfully that the only acceptable equitable division of the earnouts was an equal one, and that the trial court had no more discretion in dividing them than if the parties had held equal contractual interests. The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s decision to use a Janssen-type time formula in making the marital division, which appears to be the first time an appellate court has recognized the appropriateness of use of a time formula in equitably dividing a wholly marital asset.
Gill v. Gill, No. A16-1421 (Minn. 2018). In a case of first impression in Minnesota, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ (Gill v. Gill, 900 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. App. 2017) reversal of the trial court in finding that performance-based earnouts from the sale of a marital business interest were marital property, regardless of Husband’s key role in achieving the earnouts and the earnout period taking place wholly after both the parties’ separation and the valuation date. The high court noted that while the earnouts were contingent and would not be received until after the dissolution, the right to receive them had been acquired prior to the dissolution. Husband’s efforts in achieving the earnout could therefore be relevant to their equitable division, but not their classification as marital property. Husband was jointly represented by Ciresi Conlin LLP and our firm.
Shreve v. Shreve, No. A16-0663 (Minn. App. 2017). The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s post-dissolution ruling that Husband was bound by a stipulated permanent maintenance obligation, notwithstanding Wife’s involvement in a long-term, non-marital relationship. Husband could not compel Wife to release her medical records and participate in adverse medical and vocational evaluations where the terms of the decree did not make maintenance contingent on Wife’s disability, or require Wife to waive her medical privacy. In defending against Husband’s modification motions, Wife did not thereby place her health status “in controversy.”
Schallenberger v. Schallenberger, No. A09-1633 (Minn. App. 2010). In this post-decree marriage dissolution proceeding, the Consensual Special Magistrate’s denial of Wife’s motion to reduce child support was affirmed by the Court of Appeals because Wife failed to establish a good faith effort to become fully employed within her earning capacity.
In re Welfare of Children of B.J.M. , No. A09-1684 (Minn. App. 2010.: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights.
In re Welfare of Child of V.R.B. and W.J.B. , No. A08-1918 (Minn. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of the parents’ parental rights, denied the parents’ request to transfer custody of the children to a relative, and denied the parents’ motion to strike statements from the Guardian ad Litem’s Appellate Brief.
In re Welfare of Children of R.K. and J.L.R. , No. A08-0876 (Minn. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights because the record provided clear and convincing evidence to support each of the statutory grounds for termination and established that the termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
In re Paternity and Custody of Baby Boy A., No. A07-452 (Minn. App. 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings and application of the law as to enforcing the parties’ gestational-surrogacy agreement, applying Illinois law as provided by the choice-of-law provision in the parties’ agreement, and (3) granting the request to change the child’s name.
In re Welfare of Child of S.B. and D.W. , No. A07-0948 (Minn. App. 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of parental rights and the finding that termination is in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to strike portions of Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department’s brief on grounds that it contains documents outside of the record.
In re Welfare of Child of S.B. and D. W., No. A05-2386 (Minn. App. 2006). The Guardian ad Litem challenged the district court’s order transferring custody of a minor child to his grandmother. The Court of Appeals reversed because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that the transfer was in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for additional proceedings.
Ackerberg v. Ackerberg , No. A04-1645 (Minn. App. 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of joint legal custody, the denial of a mid-week overnight in the parenting time schedule, and the district court’s inclusion of a custody re-evaluation in the parties’ Decree.
Clark v. Clark , No. A04-38 (Minn. App. 2004). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of joint legal and joint physical custody and reversed the district court’s denial of Wife’s request to set child support and remanded the matter to the district court for additional findings regarding child support.
In re Welfare of Children of Howe , No. C6-03-314 (Minn. App. 2003). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of parental rights because Mother was unable to parent her children due to her cognitive disability and because the county made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to improve her parenting skills.
Moore, Hennepin County v. James , No. C4-03-70 (Minn. App. 2003). The district court denied the county’s request for a continuance so that Mother could apply for a good-cause exemption from the requirement that she cooperate with the county in paternity adjudication proceedings. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and erred in dismissing the parentage proceedings.
In re Child of Haviland , No. C0-02-1822 (Minn. App. 2003). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of parental rights.
In re Children of A. (J.) T. , Nos. C7-02-229, C3-02-440 (Minn. App. 2002). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights to her youngest child and the district court’s decision not to terminate parental rights as to two other children.
Rutz v. Rutz , 644 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. App. 2002). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Wife’s petition to move the residence of the parties’ children out of state.
Hoganson v. Bryant , No. C7-97-2384 (Minn. App. 1998). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to modify the parties’ stipulated judgment and decree as to child support, to not impute income to Husband, to reserve the issue of daycare, and the district court’s award of attorney fees.
In re Welfare of M. M ., No. C4-96-1893 (Minn. App. 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that when a child was found to be in need of protective services and had been placed in out-of-home placement, life insurance proceeds from his mother’s life insurance policy were resources attributable to child for purposes of the statute requiring that such resources be reimbursed to the county for costs of care, examination, or treatment of the child and that the statute governing money received on behalf of child as result of personal injury and placed in an account established by court did not apply to life insurance proceeds.
In re Welfare of R.T., No. C0-95-973 (Minn. App. 1995). The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights.
In re Welfare of T.T. and T.T. , No. C0-95-780 (Minn. App. 1995, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights.
In re Welfare of A.C., J.E., A.L.P., No. C5-95-502 (Minn. App. 1995, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Grandmother’s request to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the custodial placement of her granddaughter and granddaughter’s half-sister, the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding custody of A.C. and J.P., and the court’s denial of her request for visitation rights.
In re Welfare of A.H., No. C1-94-2415 (Minn. App. 1995). The Court of Appeals dismissed the parents’ appeal because the parents’ claimed error was not raised in the district court and does not constitute a basis for relief under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
In re Welfare of C.S.C. , No. C4-94-268 (Minn. App. 1994, review denied). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision that the foster parents did not have the right to intervene in the proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision that the foster parents’ adoption petition was premature and the district court’s decision to hold a permanency hearing within one year of the children’s placement in foster care.
Lehar v. Ikola , No. C7-94-183 (Minn. App. 1994). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order directing Father to pay child support to Mother and affirmed the district court’s decision ordering Father to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney fees.
In re Welfare of A.H ., No. C6-93-1296 (Minn. App. 1994, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order removing a foster child from their foster home and denying their motion to waive agency placement for the filing of a petition to adopt the child.
Waterston v. Waterston , No. C9-93-1079 (Minn. App. 1993). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s refusal to amend certain provisions in the original judgment because the motion was untimely. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s finding that there has been no substantial change in circumstances when Husband exhausted his unemployment benefits without finding employment and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the change made the support amount unreasonable or unfair.
Ma v. Ma , 483 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. App. 1992). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s refusal to vacate parties’ settlement stipulation because Husband failed to meet burden of proof to rebut the presumption of validity of parties’ Chinese marriage, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the parties’ stipulation, the trial court’s award of a lien to the former wife against the former husband’s joint tenancy interest in real property to secure property settlement award would be upheld. The Court of Appeals awarded Wife attorney fees incurred on appeal.