finding an argument relating to subject matter jurisdiction unpreserved because the appellant failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion challenging the circuit court's sua sponte jurisdictional ruling
How later courts described this case
- finding an argument relating to subject matter jurisdiction unpreserved because the appellant failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion challenging the circuit court's sua sponte jurisdictional ruling
- "Even though subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at anytime [sic], there is no error preservation exception allowing a party to bypass calling an erroneous ruling to the attention of the tribunal making it before appealing that ruling to a higher court."
- "Even though subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at [any time], there is no error preservation exception allowing a party to bypass calling an erroneous ruling to the attention of the tribunal making it before appealing that ruling to a higher court."
- " '[A]ll this Court has ever required is that the questions presented for its decision must first have been fairly and properly raised to the lower court and passed upon by that court.’ ” (quoting Hubbard v. Rowe, 192 S.C. 12, 19, 5 S.E.2d 187, 189 (1939))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice TOAL.
I respectfully dissent. To my mind, issue preservation should be no bar to the judge’s erroneous ruling on subject matter jurisdiction. Our case law is clear that a judge’s erroneous assumption of jurisdiction, be it an explicit finding of jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction, may be raised at any time on appeal and addressed de novo by the appellate court without regard to our customary issue preservation requirements. See In re November I, 2008 Bluffton Town Council Election, 385 S.C. 632 , 637, 686 S.E.2d 683, 686 (2009) (“Issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.”); Arnal v. Fraser, 371 S.C. 512 , 517 n. 2, 641 S.E.2d 419, 421, n. 2 (2007); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362 , 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). I see no reason why a judge’s erroneous ruling that she lacks subject matter jurisdiction should be treated differently from an erroneous ruling that she has subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the circuit court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and I *136 would remand the case for the circuit court to exercise that jurisdiction.
BEATTY, J., concurs.