GNOC Corp. v. Estate of Rhyne, 23986
| Decision Date | 16 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 23986,23986 |
| Citation | 312 S.C. 86,439 S.E.2d 274 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GNOC CORPORATION, d/b/a Bally's Grand Hotel and Casino, a/k/a The Golden Nugget, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF John C. RHYNE, III, Walter E. Baker, Personal Representative, Respondent. . Heard |
J. Edward Bell, III, of Bell & Bagley, and Samuel J. Abrams, Sumter, and Daniel Schiffman, New York City, for appellant.
George G. Reaves, and Benjamin D. Moore, Florence, for respondent.
This appeal arises from a statutory proceeding in probate court seeking allowance of a claim filed against decedent's estate. Appellant raises for the first time on appeal the question of whether the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment on a claim involving a gambling debt. We Affirm.
GNOC corp. filed a claim against the estate of John Rhyne, in the amount of $53,000. The alleged debt was represented by a $55,000 check bearing the signature of the decedent which had been dishonored because of insufficient funds. 1 After the Personal Representative disallowed the claim, GNOC filed a Petition for Allowance of Claim in the probate court.
The probate court denied the claim ruling appellant failed to carry the burden of proof in establishing its claim. GNOC presented a photostatic copy of a check as evidence of the claim. Appellant did not present any witnesses or affidavits to establish that the document represented a valid claim against the estate. Consequently, the probate court allowed the document solely as evidence of the decedent's signature and refused to admit the check for its substantive content.
No appeal was taken from the probate court's order denying the claim. Five months later, 2 GNOC filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied because there were no reviewable issues.
GNOC appealed the probate court order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that the primary basis for the appeal was appellant's contention that the first probate court order was null and void because the estate did not file a responsive pleading to appellant's petition for allowance of its claim. The court found that no responsive pleading was required to be filed prior to the hearing on the merits of the issue and thus, the probate court order was properly and validly issued. The circuit court concluded that appellant's only recourse was to appeal the first order, however, no timely appeal was taken.
Appellant contends the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a gambling claim because it is repugnant to the public policy against gambling in South Carolina.
As an initial matter, respondent contends that there are no issues preserved for appellate review because the matter of subject matter jurisdiction is raised for the first time on appeal. We disagree. The question of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at anytime during the action and cannot be waived or conferred by consent. Petroleum Transp., Inc. v. Public Service Comm'n, 255 S.C. 419, 179 S.E.2d 326 (1971); American Agric. Chem. Co. v. Thomas, 206 S.C. 355, 34 S.E.2d 592 (1945). Therefore, appellant is not precluded from raising the issue of subject matter jurisdiction on appeal.
Turning to the merits, the probate court has jurisdiction over all matter related to estates of decedents. S.C.Code Ann. § 62-1-302 (Supp.1992). Accordingly, the probate court had jurisdiction to hear matter pertaining to a claim against the respondent estate.
Appellant urges that because the claim involved gambling, the probate court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. Whitaker
...§ 650 (1988). Accordingly, the failure to raise the issue at trial does not waive it. Id. See also GNOC Corp. v. Estate of John C. Rhyne, --- S.C. ----, 439 S.E.2d 274 (1994) (Davis Adv.Sh. No. 1 at 40) (the question of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during th......
-
Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp.
...subject matter jurisdiction maybe raised at any time. See Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995); GNOC Corp. v. Estate of Rhyne, 312 S.C. 86, 439 S.E.2d 274 (1994); State v. Gorie, 256 S.C. 539, 183 S.E.2d 334 (1971). Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to ......
-
Deltoro v. McMullen
...matter jurisdiction despite the father's failure to bring the issue to the attention of the trial court. See GNOC Corp. v. Estate of Rhyne, 312 S.C. 86, 439 S.E.2d 274 (1994) (the lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent and may be raised at any time duri......