Opinion ID: 1946327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of Court's Jurisdiction and Authority.

Text: The essential bases of a court's authority to adjudicate a controversy are its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy and jurisdiction over the parties. This Court has also recognized that in certain narrow circumstances a party may question the authority, or jurisdictional competence, of a court to render the particular judgment in the particular case. Mo. Soybean Ass'n v. Mo. Clean Water Comm'n, 102 S.W.3d 10, 21 (Mo. banc 2003). In State ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525, 154 S.W.2d 52, 57 (banc 1941), this Court noted that subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the person are grand subdivisions of jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a tribunal's statutory authority to hear a particular kind of claim. Sexton v. Jenkins & Assocs., 152 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Mo. banc 2004). The court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs. Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 335 Mo. 60, 70 S.W.2d 890, 894 (banc 1934). Subject matter jurisdiction is derived from the law and cannot be conferred by consent, Flynn, 154 S.W.2d at 57, while personal jurisdiction may be waived because it is a personal privilege. Id. Mother does not contest that the court below had subject matter jurisdiction to decide a motion to modify and concedes that it had personal jurisdiction over the parties. But, she asserts, it did not have what she says is also a jurisdictional prerequisite, that is, jurisdiction to render the particular judgment in the particular case. Mo. Soybean, 102 S.W.3d at 21. Flynn states that the latter, which it sometimes called jurisdictional competency to enter judgment on a particular issue in a particular case, partakes of the character of one or the other of the first two, 154 S.W.2d at 57. By this Flynn meant that it normally becomes an issue when there is no question as to the court's authority to decide the general issue before it, but there is a question whether the issue or parties affected by the court's judgment are properly before it for resolution at that time. In Flynn , for example, the issue was whether a court had authority to decide a case in which the relevant statutes required the plaintiff to first seek various administrative remedies that had not been utilized. The Court explained: It is said ... `If the court cannot try the question except under particular conditions or when approached in a particular way, the law withholds jurisdiction unless such conditions exist or unless the court is approached in the manner provided, and consent will not avail to change the provisions of the law in this regard.' 154 S.W.2d at 57 (citation omitted). Flynn then concluded that in the case before it: [R]espondent's court had no power to try the case until statutory conditions had been complied with and administrative remedies had been exhausted, and also unless these facts were shown by the petition upon which respondent's jurisdiction was invoked. It partook of jurisdiction of the subject matter and could not be waived by mere appearance of the relators. Id. (emphasis in original). Accord, Bullmaster v. Krueger, 151 S.W.3d 380, 385 n. 4 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (where statute required claimant to serve notice of intent to file mechanic's lien prior to filing lien affidavit, issue was one of competency jurisdiction because concerning satisfaction of statutory prerequisites to suit). Another situation in which questions about a court's authority to issue a particular judgment in a particular case may arise is where the court has proceeded beyond the allegations of the pleadings and the prayer for relief. Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 187, 112 S.W. 545, 549 (1908). In such cases, Charles held, to that extent, at least, its judgment is void and it is open to collateral attack, id., further stating: `Persons by becoming suitors do not place themselves for all purposes under the control of the court, and it is only over these particular interests which they choose to draw in question that a power of judicial decision arises. If, in an ordinary foreclosure case, a man and his wife being parties, the Court of Chancery should decree a divorce between them, it would require no argument to convince every one that such decree, so far as it attempted to affect the matrimonial relation, was void.... In such a case the court would have acted within the field of its authority, and the proper parties would have been present; the single but fatal flaw having been the absence from the record of any issue on the point determined.' 112 S.W. at 549, quoting, Munday v. Vail, 34 N.J.L. 418, 422-23 (N.J.1871). In the context of custody actions, courts similarly have found a court lacks authority to modify a decree without first providing notice and an opportunity for hearing. For instance, this Court has held void a decision transferring custody from mother where she had not first received notice and an opportunity to be heard, stating: The mother was not notified that such motion was filed or would be heard. Her rights were fixed by the previous decree, and such decree could not be modified or changed without notice to her.... Without the presence of the mother, and without notice to her, the court entered a new decree. Such action violated due process of law, as guaranteed by the fundamental law. Citation of authority upon a question so plain will add nothing. The rights of a party cannot be disturbed without notice and a legal hearing. The judgment under which the father claims these children is void. Jack v. Jack, 295 Mo. 128, 243 S.W. 314, 315 (Mo. banc 1922).