Appellant moved to dismiss, claiming respondent's death deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the case. The trial court granted the PR's motion, did not address appellant's motion, and set an evidentiary hearing on the pension issue. This appeal follows. Generally, if a party dies during a proceeding to dissolve a marriage, the proceeding abates and a judgment cannot be entered thereafter unless the party seeking the judgment was entitled to it while both parties were alive. The trial court's granting of the PR's motion to be substituted for respondent in the dissolution proceeding functionally denied appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders denying pretrial motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are appealable as of right.
A trial court's jurisdictional ruling is reviewed de novo. Therefore, appellant concludes, neither party was entitled to a judgment while respondent was alive and Tikalsky precludes a judgment. Appellant claims that letters of the parties' attorneys show that the parties lacked a meeting of the minds because the letters show the transcript of the stipulation is inaccurate. The parties disagreed about whether respondent's parents would have to co-sign on a loan to refinance the homestead, and disagreed about whether appellant would have to pay taxes and insurance on the homestead. The record, however, shows that appellants attorney admitted the inaccuracy in the transcript and corrected it, that respondent stated her parents agreed to co-sign for the loan to refinance the homestead, and that respondent withdrew her request that appellant pay taxes and insurance.