This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C7-96-656

In Re the Marriage of:

Colleen L. Kragh, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Steven T. Kragh,

Appellant.

Filed January 7, 1997

Affirmed

Willis, Judge

Wabasha County District Court

File No. F495242

Mark A. Jarstad, P.O. Box 149, 136 East Main Street, Wabasha, MN 55981 (for Respondent)

Steven T. Kragh, P.O. Box 55, Zumbro Falls, MN 55991 (Appellant Pro Se)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.[*]

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WILLIS, Judge

Appellant challenges the judgment and decree of dissolution, claiming the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve his marriage. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

The jurisdiction of the district court is authorized by constitution or statute and is subject to de novo review. See generally Clerk of Court's Comp. v. Commissioners, 308 Minn. 172, 176-77, 241 N.W.2d 781, 783-784 (1976) (supreme court applied de novo review to determine if district court had constitutional or statutory authority to act). Findings that support jurisdiction will be overturned only if they are palpably contrary to the evidence. Jones v. Jones, 402 N.W.2d 146, 148 (Minn. App. 1987).

District courts have original jurisdiction in all civil matters and have specific, statutory jurisdiction to dissolve marriages. Minn. Const. art. 6, § 3; Minn. Stat. SSSS 484.01, 518.06, subd. 1 (1996).

A dissolution of marriage is the termination of the marital relationship between a husband and wife. * * * A dissolution of a marriage shall be granted by a county or district court when the court finds that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship.

Minn. Stat. § 518.06, subd. 1. A district court has jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage if one party has resided in Minnesota for at least 180 days. Minn. Stat. § 518.07 (1996).

Based on the record, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve the parties' marriage. Respondent alleged in her petition, and appellant admitted in his answer, the following facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction: (1) the parties were married in Rochester, Minnesota, on December 18, 1982, and (2) respondent was a resident of Minnesota for 180 days prior to the commencement of the proceeding. Respondent also testified to these facts.

The district court's finding of irretrievable breakdown is supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court properly dissolved the marriage. Minn. Stat. § 518.06, subd. 1 (providing that a district court shall grant dissolution upon finding of irretrievable breakdown).

Affirmed.

[ ]* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.