Kirsch, J.
In this interlocutory appeal, Joan Strozewski (“Joan”) challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion to transfer the case to St. Joseph County, Indiana. She raises several issues, of which we find the following dispositive: whether the trial court erred in finding that Hamilton County, Indiana, where James Strozewski (“James”) filed his petition for dissolution of marriage, was a preferred venue pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 75 and in denying Wife’s motion to transfer venue.
We affirm.
….
Trial Rule 75(A)(8) provides that preferred venue lies in “the county where a claim in the plaintiff’s complaint may be commenced under any statute recognizing or creating a special or general remedy or proceeding[.]” Indiana Code section 31-15-2-2 establishes a cause of action for the dissolution of marriage. Additionally, Indiana Code section 31-15-2-6 requires, in pertinent part, that, at the time of the filing of the dissolution petition, at least one of the parties must have been a resident of Indiana for six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition and at least one of the parties must have been a resident of the county where the petition is filed for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition. These statutes recognize or create a special or general remedy or proceeding that form the basis for preferred venue under Trial Rule 75(A)(8). Therefore, pursuant to Trial Rule 75(A)(8), preferred venue lies in any county where a dissolution action may be commenced pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-15-2-6. Here, James met the requirements under Indiana Code section 31-15-2-6 because, at the time he filed his petition, he had resided in Indiana for at least six months and in Hamilton County for at least three months.
Joan’s contentions focus on special venue statutes, but the plain language of Trial Rule 75(A)(8) states that preferred venue lies in “the county where a claim in the plaintiff’s complaint may be commenced under any statute recognizing or creating a special or general remedy or proceeding[.]” As provided above, a dissolution action is a proceeding created and recognized by statute. We, therefore, conclude that, under Trial Rule 75(A)(8), Hamilton County is a preferred venue for this dissolution action, and although preferred venue may lie in more than one county, if an action is filed in a county of preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted. [Footnote omitted.] Muneer, 951 N.E.2d at 243. The trial court did not err in denying Joan’s motion to transfer venue. [Footnote omitted.]
Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.