This question relating to the scope of the District Court's jurisdiction may be raised at any time in the proceedings, whether by a party or by the court. See Jensen v. Jensen , 2015 ME 105, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 809 ; Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Auth. , 290 A.2d 362, 365 (Me. 1972). Thus, we will not disregard the issue as unpreserved or waived.
Subject matter jurisdiction in particular "refers to the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it." Jensen v. Jensen, 2015 ME 105, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 809 (quotation marks omitted). The power of the District Court to adjudicate a child protection matter is indisputable.
Subject matter jurisdiction in particular "refers to the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it." Jensen v. Jensen , 2015 ME 105, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 809 (quotation marks omitted). The power of the District Court to adjudicate a child protection matter is indisputable.
Id. The question here is how Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e) apply to a final judgment or order of a magistrate, and specifically whether motions made pursuant to those rules may be entertained by a magistrate, or whether such motions may be ruled upon only by the District Court following an objection to the magistrate's final order or judgment. For two reasons, we conclude that motions filed pursuant to Rule 52(b) and Rule 59(e) are not available to parties seeking relief from the final order or judgment of a magistrate.[¶ 11] First, proceedings before magistrates differ from other proceedings in the District Court in that magistrates are judicial officers of limited jurisdiction, 4 M.R.S. § 183(1)(D) (2015), whose “primary objective” is “to promptly address the family's situation to assure that the children's needs are being met,” Jensen v. Jensen , 2015 ME 105, ¶ 13, 121 A.3d 809 (emphasis omitted) (quotation marks omitted). A construction of Rules 52(b) and 59(e) allowing post-judgment relief to be granted both by a magistrate, before the filing of an objection pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 118, and by the District Court, after the filing of an objection, would substantially increase the time to final resolution in family matters, thwarting the purpose that magistrates serve.
M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See also Jensen v. Jensen, 2015 ME 105, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 809 (quoting Foley v. Ziegler, 2005 ME 117, ¶ 8, 887 A.2d 36) ("the issue of a court's authority may be raised sua sponte at any point."). b. Discussion.