Chapter One Jurisdiction

• Library: Marital Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar) (2020 Ed.)

Chapter One JURISDICTION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1. Family Court Cannot Exceed Jurisdiction Conferred by Statute

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's "power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Watson v. Watson, 319 S.C. 92, 93, 460 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1995), quoting from Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237-238, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994).

The family court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Sims v. Sims, 290 S.C. 190, 348 S.E.2d 835 (1986). As a statutory court, its jurisdiction is limited to that expressly or by necessary implication conferred by statute. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health v. State, 301 S.C. 75, 390 S.E.2d 185 (1990).

If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot obtain it. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, even by consent or stipulation of the parties. Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 522 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1999); Peterson v. Peterson, 333 S.C. 538, 510 S.E.2d 426 (1998); State v. Richburg, 304 S.C. 102, 105, 303 S.E.2d 315, 317 (1991); Anderson v. Anderson, 299 S.C. 110, 382 S.E.2d 897 (1989); Cox v. Lundsford, 272 S.C. 527, 252 S.E.2d 918 (1979); Austelle v. Austelle, 294 S.C. 19, 21, 362 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1987) (stating that "[o]f course, it is axiomatic that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived").

"Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, can be raised for the first time on appeal, and can be raised sua sponte by the court," Harden v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 266 S.C. 119, 124, 221 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1976), quoting Lake v. Reeder Const. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 248, 498 S.E.2d 650, 653 (Ct. App. 1998)). Other cases holding that subject matter jurisdiction can be raised on appeal even if it is not presented to the trial court include: Arnal v. Fraser, 371 S.C. 512, 641 S.E.2d 419 (2007); Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 522 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1999); Knight Publishing Co. v. Univ. of South Carolina, 295 S.C. 31, 33 n.3, 367 S.E.2d 20, 21 n.3 (1988); Langford v. State Bd. of Fisheries, 217 S.C. 118, 60 S.E.2d 59 (1950). Thus, a litigant can leave the family court feeling victorious only to have the case reversed on appeal due to a jurisdictional error that was not even mentioned during the trial of the case.

When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it should dismiss the action under SCRCP Rule 12(h)(3), even if the parties have not requested dismissal. If the action is not dismissed, any action by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. Peake v. Peake, 284 S.C. 591, 327 S.E.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Funderburke, 259 S.C. 256, 191 S.E.2d 520 (1972).

The application of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not matters of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's power to hear and determine cases of the general class or category to which proceedings in question belong. Preclusive concepts such as res judicata and collateral estoppel are not jurisdictional matters." Mr. T. v. Mrs. T., 378 S.C. 127, 662 S.E.2d 413 (Ct. App. 2008) (remanding for further proceedings a case that the family court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for reasons of res judicata and collateral estoppel).

2. The Family Court Has Jurisdiction Over Marital Litigation and Some Other Matters Related to Marital Disputes

The family court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving all types of "marital litigation." S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(2) (2009) gives the family court exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for "divorce a vinculo matrimonii, separate support and maintenance, legal separation¹ and in other marital litigation between the parties" (emphasis added). For many years, "marital litigation" was defined as litigation that sought to establish or modify the rights and obligations of married couples. Brown v. Brown, 295 S.C. 354, 358 n.3, 368 S.E.2d 475, 476 n.3 (1988). If the action did not seek to affect the marital relationship, it was not marital litigation.²

Types of litigation that seek to affect the marital relationship include:

(1) divorces a vinculo matrimonii (S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(2) (2009)),
(2) separate support and maintenance actions (S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(2) (2009)), and
(3) annulments (S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(6) (2009)).

Actions to establish the validity of marriages also constitute marital litigation, but as explained more fully in the next chapter, family courts no longer have jurisdiction to decide actions to determine the validity of marriages, other than common law marriages pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(B) (2009). The family court's authority to determine the validity of marriages in other contexts pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420(5) (Supp.) [now Section 63-3-530(A)(5)] was removed in 2005.

In addition to "marital litigation," the family court also has specific legislative authority to hear and determine additional types of disputes between spouses and former spouses, even if they are presented outside the context of marital litigation. These include disputes involving children (paternity, termination of parental rights, custody, visitation, and support); requests for spousal support; and certain disputes about the division of marital property.

The family court has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court to hear and determine matters related to paternity, common law marriage, and interpretation of marital agreements. The legislature amended S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20-7-420 [now § 63-3-530] and 62-1-302 in June, 2005.³

Sections 63-3-530(A)(5) & (7) (2009) are now "reserved," and Section 63-3-530(B) (2009) provides for "concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court" as follows:

Notwithstanding another provision of law, the family court and the probate court have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine matters related to paternity, [common law] marriage, and interpretation of marital agreements; except that the concurrent jurisdiction of the probate court extends only to matters dealing with the estate, trust, and guardianship and conservatorship actions before the probate court.

S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-302 relating to the jurisdiction of the probate court was amended by adding the following language:

(c) The probate court has jurisdiction to hear and determine issues related to paternity, [common law] marriage, and interpretation of marital agreements in connection with estate, trust, guardianship, and conservatorship actions pending before it, concurrent with that of the family court, pursuant to Section 63-3-530.

Specific jurisdictional issues related to these topics are discussed in the relevant chapters.

3. The Family Court Lacks Jurisdiction in Many Situations

The family court does not have jurisdiction in most actions to enforce contracts. Disputes over most contracts must be resolved in the circuit court. If the family court attempts to exercise jurisdiction to construe and enforce a contract over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action by the court is void. Ratchford v. Ratchford, 295 S.C. 297, 368 S.E.2d 214 (1988).

The family court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to divide Social Security benefits in a property distribution, even if the parties agree to the division. Simmons v. Simmons, 370 S.C. 109, 634 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2006). As part of the equitable distribution of property in 1990, the trial court approved an agreement in which the husband agreed to give the wife one-third of his Social Security benefits if and when he began receiving them. When the wife filed a petition to show cause in 2003 for failing to remit any portion of the Social Security benefits, the husband filed a Rule 60(b)(4), SCRCP, motion requesting relief from the judgment. He asserted that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to divide the Social Security benefits and, therefore, the court's order was void. The family court denied his motion, and the husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals "reluctantly" agreed with the husband and reversed the denial of the husband's motion. A case of first impression in South Carolina, the Court of Appeals based its decision on 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (1998) which provides that Social Security benefits "shall not be transferable or assignable," and it cited a number of federal and state cases that have held consistently that the statute preempts state courts from treating Social Security benefits as property.

The family court judge had reasoned that "once Husband received his benefits, he is free to dispose of such funds as he deems fit" without the intervention of the Social Security administration. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that the fact that the husband voluntarily agreed to pay the wife part of his Social Security benefits is of no significance. State courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to mandate distribution of such benefits whether by agreement or otherwise.

The family court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear cases involving disputes between divorced parties about property interests that may have been acquired following the divorce, unless the family court reserved such power in the divorce decree. In Tipton v. Tipton, 351 S.C. 456, 570 S.E.2d 195 (Ct. App. 2002), a former husband and wife resumed cohabitation in the former marital home two months after their divorce. The wife had been awarded the home pursuant to their agreement and the divorce decree. Later, the husband contended that he acquired an interest in the home during four years of post-divorce cohabitation by contributing to the mortgage payments. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that once the parties were divorced there was no "marital property" over which the family court could assume jurisdiction. The family court's jurisdiction was restricted to enforcing its prior order. Also, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial...