Having reaffirmed that Michigan case law supports the conclusion that the state residency requirement of MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89 is jurisdictional, we conclude, also, that the ten-day county residency requirement set forth in the same statute also represents a jurisdictional limitation on the circuit court's power to enter a divorce decree. This Court held in Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich. 102, 105; 19 N.W.2d 502 (1945), that the county residency requirement extant at that time represented a jurisdictional limitation on the circuit court. In applying the county residency requirement which read "[a] divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the circuit court of the county where the parties or one [1] of them, reside . . .," we reversed the trial court's decree and directed the entry of a decree dismissing the plaintiff's bill of complaint and defendant's cross-bill, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the decree in question.

Divorce is too frequent a fact of marital life to be infected by such a latent malignancy. We recognize that in Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich. 102; 19 N.W.2d 502 (1945), the Michigan Supreme Court construed a county residency statute applicable to divorce actions as jurisdictional in nature. We do not believe that the holding in Lehman is controlling, however, since (1) Lehman involves a different statute and (2) at the time Lehman was decided, the Michigan Legislature had not yet embraced the modern concept of venue as subsequently set forth in Chapter 16 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.1601 et seq.; MSA 27A.1601 et seq.

If a requirement is jurisdictional, a party's failure to comply with it can be raised at any point during the proceedings, and a court must dismiss the action for the party's failure to comply-even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal. See Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich. 102, 105-106; 19 N.W.2d 502 (1945); In re Cody's Estate, 293 Mich. 697, 701; 292 N.W. 535 (1940); In re Estate of Fraser, 288 Mich. 392, 394; 285 N.W. 1 (1939). A court has no discretion to fashion equitable exceptions to a jurisdictional rule or to otherwise excuse noncompliance; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver.

Thus, subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, even if raised for the first time on appeal. Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich 102, 105-106; 19 NW2d 502 (1945); In re Cody's Estate, 293 Mich 697, 701; 292 NW 535 (1940); In re Estate of Fraser, 288 Mich 392, 394; 285 NW 1 (1939). As Karaczewski noted, since the very first workers' compensation jurisdictional statute was enacted in 1921, the law consistently provided the Michigan workers' compensation system jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries when both (1) the injured employee resided in this state at the time of injury and (2) the contract of hire was made in Michigan.

In re Kasuba Estate, 401 Mich. 560, 566; 258 N.W.2d 731 (1977). Moreover, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the court by the consent of parties. Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich. 102, 106; 19 N.W.2d 502 (1945). The court must make its own determination regarding the existence of a statutory basis for jurisdiction.

Plaintiff clearly raises its jurisdictional challenge on appeal, so it is incumbent upon this Court to resolve whether the lower court had jurisdiction over claimant's claim. See Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich. 102, 105; 19 N.W.2d 502 (1945) ("The question of jurisdiction was not raised in the trial court, but it is raised and should be determined on this appeal."). Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a dispute is a question of law reviewed de novo.

A party may challenge a court's exercise of jurisdiction at any point, even for the first time on appeal. See Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich 102, 105-106; 19 NW2d 502 (1945). This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the relevant court rules and statutes and exercised its jurisdiction.

Grubbs v Gen Electric Credit Corp, 405 US 699, 702; 92 S Ct 1344; 31 L Ed 2d 612 (1972). Lehman v Lehman, 312 Mich 102, 105-106; 19 NW2d 502 (1945); Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56; 490 NW2d 568 (1992). Jurisdictional questions are questions of law that this Court reviews de novo.

Although plaintiff did not raise this issue below, jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time, even if raised for the first time on appeal. Lehman v. Lehman, 312 Mich 102, 105; 19 NW2d 502 (1945); Smith v. Smith, 218 Mich App 727, 729-730; 555 NW2d 271 (1996). To the extent the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction, the remainder of plaintiff's claims need not be addressed because they are issues first raised on appeal.

Traveller's Ins Co v Detroit Edison, 465 Mich. 185, 204; 631 N.W.2d 733 (2001). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties, Lohman v Lohman, 312 Mich. 102, 106; 19 N.W.2d 502 (1945), and a court must take notice when it lacks jurisdiction regardless of whether the parties raised the issue. In re AMB, supra at 166-167.