may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Re the Marriage of:
Patricia L. Johari, petitioner,
Rodney K. Johari,
Filed April 8, 1997
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 204403
Geraldine C. Steen, Troesch & Steen, 14550 Excelsior Blvd., Suite 206, Minnetonka, MN 55345 (for Respondent)
Rodney Johari, c/o Prudential Select Brokerage, 3033 Campus Dr., Plymouth, MN 55441 (Pro se Appellant)
Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Norton, Judge, and Mansur, Judge.[*]
Appellant seeks to have a dissolution judgment and decree set aside on the ground that the "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" standard for dissolution of marriage is unconstitutional. We affirm.
In an October 1995 hearing, appellant challenged the constitutionality of Minnesota's no-fault divorce statute. By order dated February 26, 1996, the district court found that appellant had made no showing that the Minnesota no-fault dissolution laws were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution, and the court denied appellant's motion to declare the Minnesota no-fault dissolution laws unconstitutional.
A stipulated judgment was entered on October 10, 1996. In the judgment, the district court recognized appellant's "constitutional objections and challenges to the statutory threshold set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.06." Appellant now seeks to have the judgment set aside as unconstitutional.
A dissolution of a marriage shall be granted * * * when the court finds that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship.
(Emphasis added.) Appellant argues that the "irretrievable breakdown" or no-fault dissolution standard is unconstitutional because, where there are minor children of the marriage, it does not meet the purpose of the United States Constitution as expressed in its Preamble. He also argues that the no-fault threshold is unconstitutional because it does not provide equal protection of law as required by the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
We begin by noting that before appellant can challenge the constitutionality of a statute, he must notify the attorney general. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 144; Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn. App. 1989). Because appellant has failed to notify the attorney general of his challenge, we need address only the constitutionality of the statute as applied. Markert v. Behm, 394 N.W.2d 239, 243 (Minn. App. 1986).
We also note that this court's review on appeal is limited to issues that were raised in and decided by the district court. Waldner, 447 N.W.2d at 219. It appears from the record that appellant's first challenge, that no-fault divorce does not fulfill the purpose of the U.S. Constitution as expressed in its Preamble, was neither presented to nor addressed by the district court. We therefore decline to address that issue.
As to appellant's argument that no-fault divorce does not provide equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, appellant makes no legal argument, constitutional or otherwise, to support his position. Appellant provides only his own ideas and cites to newspaper and magazine articles that purportedly support his views. Under these circumstances, appellant has waived the constitutional issues he reserved for appeal. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971) (appellant's "assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities * * * is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection").
Appellant also requests that this court (1) order the Minnesota Legislature to revise Minn. Stat. § 518.06 so as to require a finding of cause and (2) set aside the trial court's judgment granting dissolution of the marriage, pending legislative deliberations on the matter. Such requested relief is outside the authority of this court.
[ ]* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
[ ]1 The record shows no error in the district court's dissolution of the parties' marriage. Nor does appellant claim that the district court applied an incorrect standard, or that the court failed to make findings addressing the standard, or that the findings are unsupported by the evidence.