A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court
The circuit court is the state's court of general jurisdiction. There are sixteen judicial circuits.1 Each circuit has at least one resident judge, and the state's judges serve the circuits on a rotating basis.2 The state constitution3 defines the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court:
The Circuit Court shall be a general trial court with original jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, except those cases in which exclusive jurisdiction shall be given to inferior courts, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as provided by law.
Subject matter jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong."4 Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to a valid judgment. A judgment rendered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void.5 The issue has a preferred procedural status. It cannot be waived or conferred by the consent of the parties and may be raised at any time by the court or the parties, even on appeal.6 A court is required to address the issue if it appears that the court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction but is not required to independently determine subject matter jurisdiction in every case.7
The Supreme Court's definition of subject matter jurisdiction as "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong"8 means that there is subject matter jurisdiction so long as the complaint alleges a claim within the competence of the court, and consequently, that subject matter jurisdiction almost always exists. For example, the legislature created an exclusive remedy for claims arising out of employment in the Workers' Compensation Act, which necessarily excludes the circuit court from those cases. The Supreme Court has held, however, that this exclusion does not deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The Court reasoned that "a tort action is clearly part of the general class of cases which the court of common pleas has the jurisdiction to hear."9 Consequently, a tort action (although by an employee against the employer and arising out of the employment) was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court despite the exclusivity provision. The Court read the exclusivity provision as divesting the circuit court of its original jurisdiction over the claims.10
The consequences of this analysis are significant. The claim that the case should have been heard by the workers' compensation commission became only another legal defense which was subject to the normal rules of error preservation. The defendant waived the defense by failing to assert it as a defense to plaintiff's tort action. Moreover, had the court improperly exercised jurisdiction in violation of the procedural requirements, the judgment would be valid and avoidable on appeal, but not void ab initio.11 Finally, it is difficult to identify cases that fall outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court because it is a court of original jurisdiction for all civil claims.
Nevertheless, there are a few instances where the courts have found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. State courts are deprived of subject matter jurisdiction over actions that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.12 The circuit court, however, may construe federal law, even federal law enforced by a federal agency, if it is presented in a case within the state court's subject matter jurisdiction.13 Also, the state courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal in a school discipline case when the student was only suspended.14
The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), and is a question of law for the court.15 The court may hear the issue even if it ultimately decides that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own subject matter jurisdiction.16 In construing the complaint, the trial court considers the entire pleading and construes it liberally to determine subject matter jurisdiction.17 The ultimate issue presented in the pleadings determines jurisdiction. Thus, an action to determine whether the parties were married was properly in the family court, although that determination may ultimately be used to determine heirship in probate court.18 When the determination is based upon factual findings, the appellate court is not bound by the decision below but may review the entire record to determine the jurisdictional question under a preponderance of the evidence standard.19 The decision finding subject matter jurisdiction may not be directly appealed and will be heard only after final judgment.20
The court's interpretation of subject matter jurisdiction necessarily means that almost all challenges to a court's power to proceed do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction, and consequently must be raised in a timely manner and be preserved for appellate review. For example, venue statutes do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction, although the concepts are often confused. Some statutes merge the concepts.21 Others require specified actions to be brought in a designated circuit court, implying that any other circuit court lacks the power to entertain the action.22 Some older cases use the term jurisdiction to cover both concepts.23 The Supreme Court has held there is only one circuit court in the state and its subject matter jurisdiction must be uniform throughout the state.24 Statutes that direct the circuit court to hear a class of cases but at a particular location do not affect the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction but do affect the place of trial or venue.25 Thus, a statute that limits appeals from workers' compensation decisions to the circuit court where the accident happened or the employer resides or has its principal place of business is a venue statute.26
Statutes that impose procedural requirements before suit may be filed do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction. For example, a foreign corporation must have a certificate of authority to transact business in the state before it can bring suit in any court of the state.27 The statute specifically authorizes the court to stay the proceedings to determine if a certificate of authority is needed and, if so, authorizes a further stay so the corporation may obtain the certificate.28 The authority to issue the stay necessarily means that the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction of the case. The lack of a certificate only affects the corporation's capacity to sue.29 Likewise, the state's door closing statute,30 which bars suits by non-resident plaintiffs against non-resident corporations on causes of action that arise outside of the state, does not affect subject matter jurisdiction of the courts, but more properly concerns a party's capacity to sue.31 Similarly, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a rule of policy rather than a defect of subject matter jurisdiction.32 Finally, a suit brought against a closed estate, so that there was no juridical entity to sue, was not a defect of subject matter jurisdiction.33
Defects in the procedure initiating the action, or delays in resolving it, do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.34 Likewise, the failure to comply with the procedural requirements for an appeal may deprive the court of "appellate" jurisdiction but is not a defect of subject matter jurisdiction.35 Some procedural or clerical defects in invoking the jurisdiction of a court do not affect either appellate or subject matter jurisdiction.36
Subject matter jurisdiction is not implicated by a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Holding that the complaint fails to properly allege a cause of action recognized at law is a decision on the merits of the claim rather than a determination that the court lacked judicial power to decide the case.37 For similar reasons, defenses that terminate an action do not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.38 Nor do limitations on when a case may be called for trial affect the court's jurisdiction.39
The rules that limit a particular court's power to act in a specific case do not involve subject matter jurisdiction. For example, the trial court generally loses authority over a case when the time to file post-trial motions has expired.40 Similarly, the trial judge loses authority over a case when the final order is filed with the clerk,41 and an appellate court may not hear issues that have not been preserved.42 Although often phrased in terms of jurisdiction, these rules are triggered by the particular facts of a case and are not a limitation on the circuit court's power to decide these issues generally.
Subject matter jurisdiction over a class of cases often requires that court to determine issues that appear to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of other tribunals. Judicial economy may dictate that the first tribunal, in exercising its subject matter jurisdiction, may decide the issue.43 Similarly, the circuit court may be affected by actions pending before the Workers' Compensation Commission, which has exclusive jurisdiction of all questions ancillary to the determination of the employee's claim. Once an employee's claim is pending before the commission, it may decide if the insurance policy was properly canceled, although in the absence of the workers' compensation claim, that action is filed properly in the circuit court. The circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of the cancellation of the insurance policy but does not exercise it to avoid two tribunals deciding the same question. Once the agency action is concluded, a declaratory judgment action testing the validity of the cancellation could be brought.44 If the action was not pending before the...
