Court Opinion

ID: 9712937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:03:29.752202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.363533
License: Public Domain

H. R. Gage, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow additional evidence on the eligibility of voters. However, I would hold that part of the circuit court’s order exceeded the court’s jurisdiction.
Courts have jurisdiction to resolve questions concerning property rights but do not have jurisdiction to resolve purely ecclesiastical questions. Berry v Bruce, 317 Mich 490; 27 NW2d 67 (1947); White v Mount Beulah Baptist Church, 319 Mich 392; 29 NW2d 774 (1947); United Armenian Brethren Evangelical Church v Kazanjian, 320 Mich 214; 30 NW2d 842 (1948); Michigan Congregational Conference v United Church of Stanton, 330 Mich 561; 48 NW2d 108 (1951); First Protestant Reformed Church v DeWolf, 344 Mich 624; 75 NW2d 19 (1956). The circuit court here acted within its jurisdiction when it determined who had the right to control the church’s property, but it exceeded its jurisdiction when it purported to determine who would perform the religious functions of the office of pastor. The latter question is purely ecclesiastical.
An appellate court ordinarily will not review questions not raised or briefed by the parties, but an exception to this rule exists for fundamental questions relating to the court’s jurisdiction or *126reviewing function. Nicpon v Nicpon, 9 Mich App 373, 376; 157 NW2d 464 (1968). Subject-matter jurisdiction is an absolute requirement for a judicial proceeding and cannot be conferred by consent, conduct, or waiver. Kita v Matuszak, 21 Mich App 421; 175 NW2d 551 (1970); Bandfield v Wood, 104 Mich App 279; 304 NW2d 551 (1981). The question of subject-matter jurisdiction may be reached at any time. Warner v Noble, 286 Mich 654; 282 NW 855 (1938).
The majority points out that the question of jurisdiction was raised in an interlocutory application for leave to appeal to this Court. The order denying leave stated that leave was denied "for lack of merit in the grounds presented”. The doctrine of "law of the case” requires that, when an appellate court has passed on legal questions and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus resolved will not be resolved differently in a subsequent appeal in the same case while the facts remain materially the same. CAF Investment Co v Saginaw Twp, 410 Mich 428, 454-455; 302 NW2d 164 (1981); Allen v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 61 Mich App 62, 65-66; 232 NW2d 302 (1975). In other contexts, the phrase "lack of merit in the grounds presented” has been held to constitute a resolution of legal questions binding on a subsequent panel under the doctrine of "law of the case”. People v Wiley, 112 Mich App 344, 346; 315 NW2d 540 (1981); People v Douglas, 122 Mich App 526, 530; 332 NW2d 521 (1983). However, denial of leave to appeal an interlocutory order is not the equivalent of affirmance of the order and does not preclude appellate review of the order in a subsequent appeal. Great Lakes Realty Corp v Peters, 336 Mich 325, 328-329; 57 NW2d 901 (1953). In the context of the order at *127issue here, the phrase "lack of merit in the grounds presented” refers merely to the grounds presented for immediate appellate review of the interlocutory order; no resolution of the substantive issue presented is expressed. This panel can and should consider the jurisdictional issue.
I would affirm the circuit court’s decision, but modify it to confine it to matters within the court’s jurisdiction.