Cited by

See In re Marriage of Thorn , , ¶ 10, (appellate court lacks jurisdiction over issues raised in untimely, amended notice of appeal); Lee v. Lee , , 125, (court lacks jurisdiction to consider arguments raised after notice of appeal filed).

¶ 17 (App. 2014) (subject matter jurisdiction is not “coterminous” with the family court’s authority to act pursuant to the marital statutes).

¶ 35 (App. 2014); (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”), abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling–T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.

¶ 35 (App. 2014) ("Having successfully persuaded the court to follow this approach, [the party] cannot now argue it was erroneous."); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 35 (App. 2014) (“Having successfully persuaded the court to follow this approach, [the party] cannot now argue it was erroneous.”).

¶ 10, (holding this court lacked jurisdiction to review issues set forth in an untimely amended notice of appeal).

¶ 37, In re: Estate of Cohen, -41, - 24 (1970); -12 (1951); 268 P. 181, 184 (1928); ¶ 27, review denied (Jan.

¶43 However, “‘[i]n current usage,’” subject matter jurisdiction “‘refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.’” quoting Maldonado, 223 P.3d at 655.

.”); ¶ 21, (holding that the family court can order a spouse to return sole and separate property, even if the property has declined in value or changed form).

¶9 Though in the past courts have referred to “subject matter jurisdiction” to describe their authority under a specific controlling statute, ¶ 17 (App. 2014), “[i]n current usage, the phrase ‘subject matter jurisdiction’ refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case,” ¶ 14 (2010).

¶ 10, 4 DISCUSSION ¶6 Mother argues the family court erred by denying her petition to modify the child support order and tax exemption allocation.

¶ 35, (stating that the appellant could not persuade the court to follow a certain approach, and then argue on appeal that approach was erroneous).

¶ 27, (holding that judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting an inconsistent position in a later proceeding involving the same parties and issues).