Opinion ID: 901335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Applicable Law and Jurisdictional Questions

Text: [¶15.] Against this backdrop, questions arise concerning the trial courts jurisdiction in this case. The right to appeal is a creature of statute set by the legislature. We have previously said: The right to any appeal is statutory and established by the legislature. This court has consistently recognized that the right to an appeal is purely statutory and no appeal may be taken absent statutory authorization. An attempted appeal from which no appeal lies is a nullity and confers no jurisdiction on the court except to dismiss it. Appeal of Lawrence County, 499 N.W.2d 626, 628 (S.D.1993) (internal citations omitted). We have also said that [w]hen procedure is prescribed by the legislature for reviewing the action of an administrative body, review may be had only on compliance with such proper conditions as the legislature may have imposed. Appeal of Heeren Trucking Co., 75 S.D. 329, 330-31, 64 N.W.2d 292, 293 (1954). [¶16.] The legislature has clearly established in SDCL Chapter 11-2 the right of and procedure for appealing county zoning decisions. In this case, the trial court based jurisdiction and review on SDCL 7-8-27 and 7-8-30. We question whether the trial court had authority and jurisdiction under those statutes. Moreover, underlying the trial court's jurisdictional authority are fundamental questions concerning the authority under which the Commissioners acted  that is, whether the Commissioners acted as the zoning officer, as a board of adjustment, or as a board of county commissioners. Which role the Commissioners assumed when they acted on Elliott's application becomes significant in judging the legality of the action and the right to appeal. At least one Commissioner, in answer to a question, believed the Commissioners [were] stepping into [the Zoning Officer's] shoes. [7] If the Commissioners were acting as the Zoning Officer, they needed to establish their authority to do so. If the Commissioners acted as a board of adjustment, they only had the powers of a board of adjustment as set forth by SDCL 11-2-53. If they acted as a board of county commissioners, their authority is questionable. On the other hand, jurisdiction depends on the pleadings and prayer for relief. Thus, there may also be a question as to whether Elliott's pleadings and actions sufficiently preserved his right of appeal or were sufficiently drafted to establish jurisdiction in circuit court. [¶17.] Although jurisdictional questions were not raised below or on appeal, we have consistently held that questions of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and sua sponte by this Court. Pennington County v. State ex rel. Unified Judicial System, 2002 SD 31, ¶9, 641 N.W.2d 127, 130. It is the rule in this state that jurisdiction must affirmatively appear from the record and this court is required sua sponte to take note of jurisdictional deficiencies, whether presented by the parties or not. State v. Phipps, 406 N.W.2d 146, 148 (S.D.1987) (citation omitted); see also Decker ex rel. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 1999 SD 62, ¶14, 594 N.W.2d 357, 362; Deno v. Oveson, 307 N.W.2d 862, 863 (S.D.1981). We have directed that [t]he test for determining jurisdiction is ordinarily the nature of the case, as made by the complaint, and the relief sought. Phipps, 406 N.W.2d at 148 (citation omitted).