Opinion ID: 1622904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subject Matter Jurisdiction versus Lack of Authority

Text: The issue before us is whether Klinge's failure to file a request for mediation with the farm mediation service as required by section 654B.3 deprives the small claims court of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is the power `of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, not merely the particular case then occupying the court's attention.' Christie v. Rolscreen Co., 448 N.W.2d 447, 450 (Iowa 1989) (quoting Wederath v. Brant, 287 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Iowa 1980)). Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by constitutional or statutory power. In re Estate of Falck, 672 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2003) (citing Hutcheson v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 480 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 1992)). The parties themselves cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by an act or procedure. Id. (citing In re Estate of Dull, 303 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 1981)). Unlike personal jurisdiction, a party cannot waive or vest by consent subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (citing In re Estate of Dull, 303 N.W.2d at 406). Lack of subject matter can be raised at any time. State v. Mandicino, 509 N.W.2d 481, 482 (Iowa 1993) (citing State v. Ryan, 351 N.W.2d 186, 187 (Iowa 1984)). If a court enters a judgment without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the judgment is void and subject to collateral attack. In re Estate of Falck, 672 N.W.2d at 789 (citations omitted); see, e.g., Rosenberg v. Jackson, 247 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1976) (setting aside a four-year-old default judgment because the court lacked jurisdiction). Since Christie, we have been careful to distinguish between subject matter jurisdiction and a court's authority to hear a particular case. See, e.g., In re Estate of Falck, 672 N.W.2d at 789-90; Fed. Am. Int'l, Inc. v. Om Namah Shiva, Inc., 657 N.W.2d 481, 484-85 (Iowa 2003); In re Marriage of Seyler, 559 N.W.2d 7, 10 n. 3 (Iowa 1997); State v. Mandicino, 509 N.W.2d at 482. In Christie, we said: A court may have subject matter jurisdiction but for one reason or another may not be able to entertain the particular case. In such a situation we say the court lacks authority to hear that particular case. Sometimes we have referred to lack of authority to hear the particular case as lack of jurisdiction of the case. Christie, 448 N.W.2d at 450. The significance of this distinction becomes evident when issues of waiver arise. In contrast to subject matter jurisdiction, a court's lack of authority is not conclusively fatal to the validity of an order. In re Marriage of Seyler, 559 N.W.2d at 10 n. 3. Consequently, an order entered without authority is voidable rather than void. In re Estate of Falck, 672 N.W.2d at 790. Thus if a party waives the court's [lack of] authority to hear a particular case, the judgment becomes final and is not subject to collateral attack. Id. ; see Mandicino, 509 N.W.2d at 483 ([W]here subject matter jurisdiction exists, an impediment to a court's authority can be obviated by consent, waiver or estoppel.).