{¶ 2} On January 27, 2004, appellee filed a complaint for breach of contract seeking monetary relief. Appellant filed an answer, a counterclaim, and a new party *2 complaint. Trial was scheduled for February 21, 2006. However, during a pretrial conference on February 3, 2006, the parties along with a third-party defendant discussed possible settlement options. While nо written settlement appears in the record, appellee maintains the parties reached an agreement which was communicated to the trial judge. On February 24, 2006, the parties filed a "mutual dismissal with prejudice." In its entirety, the dismissal read:
{¶ 3} "Now come[s] Plaintiff, Nova Information Systems, Inc. and Defendant, Current Directions, Inc., [and by] agreement of the parties, it is hereby ordered as follows:
{¶ 4} "1. The Complaint filed against Current Directions is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
{¶ 5} "2. Thе Counterclaim against Nova Information Systems, Inc. and Defendants' Third Party Complaint against Merchant Warehouse, Visa and Mastercard are [sic] herеby dismissed with prejudice.
{¶ 6} "3. Each party will bear its own costs."
{¶ 7} The order was signed by the trial judge as well as counsel for both parties and filed with the court.
{¶ 8} Nearly six months later, on August 4, 2006, appelleе filed a "Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement." In its motion, appellee set forth the details of the settlement which the parties purportedly entered into after their negotiations on February 3, 2006. Appellee pointed out that appellant had failed to honor the agreement аnd, in fact, denied the existence of the same. On August 18, 2006, appellant moved to strike appellee's motion to enforce. Appellant argued that the *3 parties failed to reach a compromise after negotiations and therefore no enforceable agreement existed. Appellant pointed out that the record was devoid of any written agreement and asserted that appellee's motion was frivolous beсause it was filed well after the case was dismissed with prejudice. On August 24, 2006, appellee filed a reply brief opposing appellant's motion to strike.
{¶ 9} On September 7, 2006, after considering the various motions, the trial court granted appellee's motion to enforce. Appellant now appeals and asserts the following assignment of error:
{¶ 10} "The trial court erred by issuing an order granting plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement agreement on September 7, 2006, after there was an unconditional dismissal (with prejudice) of the matter filed on February 24, 2006, wherein there was no reservation of jurisdiction for thе court to act further on the matter."
{¶ 11} Appellant argues the trial court erred in considering and later granting appellee's motion to enforce because the matter had been dismissed without a reservation of jurisdiction. Specifically, appellant argues that because the cоurt unconditionally dismissed the underlying matter via its February 24, 2006 order, it lost jurisdiction to enforce the settlement purportedly entered into on February 3, 2006.1
{¶ 12} In response, appellee argues appellant failed to raise the jurisdictional issue at the lower court and therefore waived the argument on аppeal. Further, even if the issue was not waived, appellee contends the trial court properly granted the motion *4 because the oral settlement agreement was premised upon a valid offer, acceptance, and evidenced by consideration.
{¶ 13} We first point out that appellee's waiver argument is inaccurate. Regardless of a party's failure to object, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction cannot bе waived and may be raised at any stage in the proceeding, including on appeal. In re Netotea, 11th Dist. No. 2004-T-0120,
{¶ 14} With this in mind, we recognize that a trial court possesses the authority to enforce a settlement agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties to a lawsuit. Mack v. Polson (1984),
{¶ 15} In contrast, a trial court may retain limited jurisdiction over a matter, post-dismissal, pursuant to an express condition in the underlying order. See Berger v. Riddle (Aug. 18, 1994), 8th Dist. Nos. 66195 and 66200,
{¶ 16} Here, the February 24, 2006 dismissal entry unconditionally dismissed the case with prejudice. Even assuming a valid settlement agreement exists, the judgment *6
entry failed to include language reserving limited jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Moreover, this court cannot reasonably construe appellant's motion to enforce the settlement as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Showcase Homes, supra; see, also,The Cambodian Buddhist Society, Inc. v. Ke, 10th Dist. Nos. 01AP-731 and 01A-732,
{¶ 17} Appellant's sole assignment of error has merit.
{¶ 18} For the reasons set forth above, the Septеmber 7, 2006 judgment entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is hereby reversed and vacated.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J., concur.