Other courts have held that if a decree of divorce is denied, the court has no jurisdiction to divide property interests of the parties without express statutory authority. Martin v. Soden, 81 Idaho 274, 340 P.2d 848 (1959); Rothwell v. Rothwell, 219 Or. 221, 347 P.2d 63 (1959); Gooden v. Gooden, 180 Or. 309, 176 P.2d 634 (1947); Smith v. Smith, 179 Iowa 723, 161 N.W. 698 (1917); Noel v. Noel, 307 Ky. 132, 210 S.W.2d 142 (1947). The Iowa court said in Smith:

"A void judgment ... may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it.... It may be attacked by a person adversely affected by it, in any proceeding, direct or collateral, and at any time." Martin v. Soden , 81 Idaho 274, 281, 340 P.2d 848, 852 (1959) (quoting 30A Am.Jur. Judgments § 45 ). A judgment is void if there is some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

"A void judgment . . . may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. . . . It may be attacked by a person adversely affected by it, in any proceeding, direct or collateral, and at any time." Martin v. Soden, 81 Idaho 274, 281, 340 P.2d 848, 852 (1959) (quoting 30A Am.Jur. Judgments § 45). A judgment is void if there is some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it: lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

Suffice it to say we have noted them and do not find them analogous to the instant case or persuasive. While the general concept of jurisdiction, as noted, is very broad and has many facets, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra; Martin v. Soden, 81 Idaho 274, 340 P.2d 848 (1959); Curtis v. Siebrand Bros. Circus Carnival Co., 68 Idaho 285, 194 P.2d 281 (1948); Peisker v. Chavez, supra; Restatement of Judgments, §§ 4-40 (1942); jurisdiction over the subject matter is a narrow and well-defined aspect of the broader concept. A classical definition of jurisdiction over the subject matter was adopted by this court in the early case of Richardson v. Ruddy, 15 Idaho 488, 494, 98 P. 842, 844 (1908), as follows:

Accordingly, appellant is not barred from proceeding with her present action.See Rogers v. Rogers, 35 Idaho 645, 208 P. 234 (922); Martin v. Soden, 81 Idaho 274, 340 P.2d 848 (1959).See "Default Decree in Divorce Action as Estoppel or Res Judicata with Respect of Marital Property Rights;" 22 A.L.R.2d 724 (1952).

y to divide community property in a separate maintenance decree; (2) the husband did not ask for a "division" of the community property and the court had no jurisdiction or authority to grant relief which was not prayed for; (3) the jurisdiction and authority of the court in the separate maintenance action was limited to a determination of the nature of the property, for the sole purpose of fixing and securing the award of separate maintenance, and the court had no jurisdiction or authority to, in effect, quiet title in the husband; (4) plaintiff was not bound by the judgment in Civil No. 1307 because her husband was not joined as a defendant in that action; and (5) the judgment in Civil No. 1307 was not binding on the plaintiff because it was founded upon the erroneous premise that the issues were determined against the plaintiff in Civil No. 1241, and the judgment in Civil No. 1241, being void for lack of jurisdiction, the judgment in Civil No. 1307 based thereon was likewise void. Martin v. Soden, 81 Idaho 274, 340 P.2d 848 (1959), was an action brought by an assignee of decedent Jackson E. Soden to foreclose the lien upon community real property given to Jackson E. Soden to secure the repayment to him of his separate interest in community property by the decree in Civil No. 1241. Upon Mrs. Soden's appeal in that case we held that the trial court, in the divorce action, after denying the divorce to Mr. Soden, had jurisdiction and authority, in the cross-action presented by Mrs. Soden for separate maintenance, to determine the character of the property and to give her a lien upon the community property to secure her separate maintenance. Radermacher v. Radermacher, 59 Idaho 716, 87 P.2d 461 (1938); Walker v. Manson, 49 Idaho 468, 289 P. 86 (1930).

¶ 10 The holding in Matthews is inapposite under the facts here where disposition of Lot 2 was not before the divorce court. Generally, a divorce decree is not conclusive of the property rights of the parties, unless such rights were in issue and adjudicated therein. Lewis v. Superior Court, 77 Cal.App.3d 844, 144 Cal.Rptr. 1; Martin v. Soden, 340 P.2d 848 (Idaho 1959); Wallack v. Wallack, 88 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. 1955); First Nat'l Bank v. Wolff, 66 Nev. 51, 202 P.2d 878 (1949). ¶ 11 However, in Wilson v. Hartman, 1976 OK 10, 545 P.2d 742, the Supreme Court did consider facts similar to those before us. The subject of controversy there was two tracts of land held by a married couple in joint tenancy with right of survivorship.