About The Firm
The Brown Law Offices, P.A. is a northwest Twin Cities law firm focused on divorce and family law issues. Our attorneys use common sense and attempt to cost-effectively resolve disputes. When the need arises, however, we are prepared to litigate and take your case to trial.
We serve primarily Hennepin, Anoka, Sherburne and Wright County. But, we've also handled cases throughout the entire Twin Cities area, and greater Minnesota (from Duluth to Redwood Falls, Winona to Park Rapids).
Our Approach
The attorneys and support staff with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. are dedicated to upholding the rights of our clients. We know that everyone we represent faces a very unique situation. For that reason, we get to know our clients on a personal level and understand what motivates them. It's an investment on our part that consistently pays off in the courtroom.
We understand you are facing a tough situation. We're here for you. Once we accept responsibility for your case, we will continue to provide you with the appropriate guidance - all the while making certain you are protected to the fullest extent of the law. We offer confidence and peace of mind during a very stressful time, and empower you to make informed decisions about the future.
Family law cases are tough. We appreciate that you want a good result, without breaking the bank. Our promise to every client is that we will apply common sense to every situation, and attempt to resolve matters in the least expensive manner available - taking matters to trial only when absolutely necessary.
Case Experience
Over the last fourteen years, our attorneys have assisted over a thousand litigants through the family court process. We've helped clients from all socio-economic backgrounds (from homemakers, union construction workers, mechanics and truck drivers to Fortune 500 executives, professors, doctors, accountants, engineers - and even other lawyers) through some of life's most difficult challenges. Here are just a few of the results our lawyers have obtained:
Custody
Our client was a stay-at-home mother of two young boys. She suffered from postpartum depression, which did not affect her ability to effectively parent the children. However, she attempted to take her own life just prior to the separation of the parties, and again about one month following separation, under stress of marital conflict.
Following her treatment and release, husband refused to allow the children to return to her care, claiming it was "unsafe" for them. For over a year, husband limited her interaction with the children. Our experts opined that she did not present a danger to herself, or the children, and that the root cause of her breakdown involved being prescribed the wrong type of medication for her depression.
After 18 months of contentious litigation, and a three day trial, our client was granted sole physical custody of the children.
Custody
We represented a mother of two teen children. The relationship of the parties was extremely strained. Husband had committed multiple acts of domestic abuse upon our client during the marriage, frequently drank and smoked marijuana, and alienated the children against their mother. At trial, the children testified that they wanted to live with their father. Our expert opined that mother should be granted sole physical custody. Husband was represented by a prominent divorce attorney.
Following a two day trial, the judge, in a very unusual move, issued a custody award in favor of our client - right from the bench.
Custody
Our client was a police officer and father of a special needs child. His schedule afforded him lots of time with his son prior to the dissolution of his marriage. Wife petitioned Anoka County (known for declining an award of joint physical custody - especially when the parties don't agree on it) for sole physical custody.
The case settled on a full and final basis in favor of our client after our lawyers convinced the court to award joint physical custody at a temporary motion hearing.
Custody
We represented the mother of two young boys. Husband moved our client, and the children, to Minnesota from Colorado under the pretense that it was for the purpose of being "closer to his family." In reality, he was having an affair with his high school sweetheart, and wanted to live near her. Not six months after the move, husband served our client with divorce papers. Our client immediately took the children to Arizona, to be near her family.
At trial, we presented recordings of husband's mistreatment of our client in front of the children, husband's abusive conduct directed toward our client's family (such as spitting on her wheelchair-bound mother during a visit to Arizona), and making the children feel guilty for living so far away from him. Husband testified, under oath, that he had not done any of these things. He didn't know about our recorded evidence, which was subsequently presented to impeach him.
After a three day trial, our client was allowed to remain in Arizona with the children and was awarded sole physical custody.
Custody
Our client was the mother of three young children that she home-schooled. Husband committed acts of domestic abuse upon our client, and the youngest of the parties' children, during the marriage. Despite evidence to the contrary (such as being arrested for assaulting our client and being charged with driving drunk with the children in the car), husband would not admit that he had an alcohol abuse problem or issues controlling his anger. Husband sought an award of sole physical custody of the children, with the support of a custody evaluator.
After four days of very damaging testimony against husband, and our cross examination of he, and his witnesses, husband elected to settle. He agreed that our client would receive sole physical custody and sole legal custody of the minor children. Further terms called for him to exercise a graduated supervised parenting time schedule, on the condition that he complete alcohol abuse treatment, be subject to random breath tests and complete a domestic abuse program.
Custody
We represented the mother of a two-year-old boy. Father was addicted to cocaine and continued to use and sell drugs in the presence of the child, including driving the child while under the influence. Husband was represented by a well-known divorce attorney. Before trial, it was agreed that our client would receive sole physical and legal custody of the child. Husband's parenting time was agreed to be supervised only.
Child Support
Our client was the father of two teenage boys who were experiencing mistreatment by their mother and her new husband. As a result, they elected to stay primarily with dad. Our client was under a court order to pay the wife child support, even though the boys rarely saw their mother. Despite that fact, wife sought to enforce the support provisions in the divorce decree. She also sought retroactive support of over $42,000.
Following multiple motion hearings, our client prevailed in full and wife was ordered to pay him ongoing child support for the two boys. The vast majority of our client's arrears were forgiven by the court.
Child Support
Our client was the mother of two. The parties stipulated that husband would pay an upward deviation from the child support guidelines as part of their divorce. Six months after the entry of the divorce decree, husband was demoted because he was having an affair with a subordinate. He moved the court to reduce his child support obligation in light of his pay decrease.
Our attorneys argued that he was not entitled to a support reduction for two reasons. First, the agreement to deviate upward was specifically negotiated and supported by contractual consideration. Second, husband's own misconduct lead to his reduction in income. The court agreed on both counts and denied husband's motion.
Property & Debt Division
Our client was a sole proprieter electrician. The parties had substantial debt, which our client agreed to take, on the condition that his wife transfer her 401(k), in full, to him. After months of negotiation, she would not agree to do so. She claimed the debts were all "business in nature." We tried the case, proving that the debts were, indeed, personal in nature. A judgment and decree in favor of our client followed, with wife's 401(k) plan transferred to him, in full, to satisfy her share of the marital debt.
Property & Debt Division
We represented the husband in a divorce proceeding. Wife owned an import business, but claimed that the business had no value. We retained a business valuator and, with his assistance, obtained a substantial property settlement in favor of husband.
Property & Debt Division
Our client owned an auto repair business. Wife worked as the business manager, but secretly opened an individual bank account and funneled more than $40,000 away from the business. Wife was represented by a prominent family lawyer. She denied under oath that any such account existed. We were able to obtain an ex parte injunction that prohibited wife from the business and uncovered various acts of misdealing on her part. The case settled before trial.
Spousal Maintenance
Our client divorced her husband several years before we were retained to represent her. He owned a portion of a successful litigation consulting business that generated annual income in excess of $200,000 for husband. Husband also received an annual bonus in excess of $300,000.
The divorce decree indicated that husband would pay our client ongoing spousal maintenance of $7,000 per month and 25% of his annual bonus income for ten years. This was partially based on need, and partially based on our client's agreement not to demand her equity in the business at the time of divorce.
A few years after entry of the divorce decree, husband sought to amend the decree, based on the claim that he "never expected that his bonus income would be so substantial." Husband was represented by high-profile lawyers from two different law firms at the hearing.
During the course of litigation, we uncovered pre-dissolution evidence that presumed his bonus income would actually exceed that which he actually received. At the hearing we argued the complex principles of the parol evidence evidence rule permitted the receipt of this evidence into the record. The court agreed.
The court denied husband's request to modify. The value of our client's ongoing maintenance award exceeds $1,000,000.
Spousal Maintenance
We represented a husband who earned in excess of $200,000 per year. The marriage was over 15 years in length. Wife, represented by a well-known divorce lawyer, sought an award of permanent spousal maintenance of over $6,000 per month from our client.
After months of litigation and ongoing negotiation, the wife agreed to an award of $6,000 per month for just two years. In our opinion, our client's exposure was for much more. We believe we saved our client at least $500,000 in alimony payments over the ten years he had left to work.
Spousal Maintenance
We represented a husband who earned in excess of $500,000 per year. The marriage was 16 years in length. Wife, represented by a prominent divorce lawyer, sought an award of permanent spousal maintenance of $14,000 per month from our client. Our client made an offer to pay $12,000 per month prior to trial. Wife rejected the offer.
At trial, we successfully argued that Wife vastly overstated her ongoing needs, and understated her income. The Court awarded Wife $9,000 per month in spousal maintenance - $5,000 less than Wife's demand, and $3,000 less than our client's best pre-trial offer.
Out-of-State Move
We represented the mother of three children: a second-grade boy and pre-school twin girls. Our client stayed home with the children while husband worked evenings as a registered nurse. Following a stipulation that she would receive custody of the children, our client wished to return to the Reno, Nevada area. Husband opposed her request.
At trial, we demonstrated that husband played an extremely limited role in the children's upbringing. We proved that he worked until the early morning hours, went out after work, slept most of the day and returned to work shortly after waking up. We used husband's deposition testimony to impeach him and to demonstrate to the court that he didn't engage much with the children or take a significant interest in them.
Husband retained a well-known psychologist to testify that the relevant literature discourages out-of-state moves. We proved otherwise on cross examination and impeached the psychologist with other appellate cases that questioned her credibility.
We further proved that the testimony of the guardian ad litem in the case was tainted by opposing counsel's violation of a sequestration order issued by the court at the beginning of trial. The guardian admitted that opposing counsel told her that his expert psychologist was "adamant" that our client's move not take place, when, in fact, she never testified as such.
After four days of testimony, our client's request to relocate out-of-state was granted.
Pure Default Judgment
Our client was the mother of two children. She was a citizen of Paraguay. Husband married our client, had children with her and brought the children to the United States under the pretense that he would "send for his wife" when they got settled. He subsequently married another woman in the United States, without dissolving his marriage to our client, and withheld the children from our client.
After years of false promises, our client decided to take matters into her own hands. She traveled through Mexico and entered the United States in southern California. She arrived in Minnesota a week later, and discovered what her husband had done. She retrieved the children and settled in the Twin Cities. Her immigration status was cleared under the Violence Against Woman's Act.
Husband was served with divorce papers, but made no effort to communicate in the case. He failed to show up for court on multiple occasions and we were able to obtain a pure default judgment against him.
Domestic Abuse
We represented Wife. Husband petitioned for an Order for Protection, alleging that our client inflicted actual physical harm upon him during an altercation between the two.
At trial, we established that Husband initiated the conflict, was not in fear of Wife, and the light scratch to his hand (from her wedding ring) was not the type of physical harm the legislature had in mind in creating the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act. Husband's request for a protective order was denied.
