A decree entered without subject matter jurisdiction is void and that issue can be raised at any time. Chapoteau v. Chapoteau, 659 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 654 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Walt v. Walt, 574 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Cf. Plummer v. Hoover, 519 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); International Harvester Co. v. Mann, 460 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Dimino v. Farina, 572 So.2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Kennedy v. Reed, 533 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

The courts have held, however, in the context of evaluating factual matters asserted in a memorandum of law appearing in the record on appeal, that “unproven utterances documented only by an attorney are not facts that a trial court or this court can acknowledge.“ Schneider v. Currey, 584 So.2d 86, 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accord Blimpie Capital Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza Partners, Ltd., 636 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The only possible basis in the record for the trial court’s conclusion in this cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction is the respondent's version of the facts as stated by her attorney, documented in the record regarding the Relator's Motions to Dismiss accompanying this petition.

this instant case before the lower tribunal must be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. States v. Siviglia, 686 Fed. 2d 832, 835 (1981). The Florida Statutes upon which the lower Court's adjudication’s are based are not laws in the State of Florida and Relator cannot be bound thereby. If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right. Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619. Consequently, the lower tribunal's position is fundamentally and fatally defective and therefore the lower tribunal is without jurisdiction to try or adjudicate the Relator. Therefore, the lower tribunal's orders are void and unenforceable. Without valid statutes containing an enacting clause, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and therefore any decisions by the lower court is rendered void. Hooker v. Boles, 346 Fed. 2d 285, 286 (1965); Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797, 799 (S.D. 1983); People v. McKinnon, 362 N.W. 2d 809, 812 (Mich. App. 1985); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4). Without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court's judgment is void. Kutner v. Kutner, 159 Fla. 870, 33 So.2d 42 (1947); see also Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass‘n, 489 So.2d 758, 759-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The Relator is not bound if the judgment being attacked is void because the court rendering the judgment lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Corbin Well Pump & Supply v. James D. Koon, 482 So. 2d 525, 11 Fla. Law W. 295 (Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1986). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction it has no power to decide the case and any judgment entered is absolutely null and void, can be set aside and stricken from the record on motion at any time and may be collaterally attacked. Young v. State, 439 So2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926). For all practical purposes the “final judgment“ serves no legal function and is null and void as beyond the judicial power as well as being beyond the invoked subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court in this particular case.