deceased. Rather, the court held, section 62-1-302(a)(1) applies, because a determination that a party was the common-law spouse of the decedent is really a determination that the party is an heir of the decedent. We disagree. Reading the statutes together, jurisdiction to determine the existence of a common-law marriage depends upon the ultimate issue before the court. If the ultimate issue is heirship, which is within the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction, then the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve the threshold issue whether the decedent was a party to a common-law marriage. If the existence of a common-law marriage is itself the ultimate issue, then the family court has exclusive jurisdiction. Cf. Neely v. Thomasson, 365 S.C. 345, 350-51, 618 S.E.2d 884, 887-88 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Here, Appellant brought an action for a
holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property holding that a probate court lacked jurisdiction over a proceeding to declare heirship because a court empowered with probate jurisdiction may only exercise its probate jurisdiction over matters incident to an estate when a probate proceeding related to such matters is already pending in that court emphasis added quoting bailey v cherokee cty appraisal dist 862 sw2d 581 585 tex 1993 holding the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction recognizing the difference between jurisdiction over an action and jurisdiction over an issue and holding that although section 2074207 vests the family court with exclusive jurisdiction over actions to determine paternity under section 621302a1 the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of paternity when the issue is essential to the probate courts determination of heirs