Court Opinion

ID: 9646398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:58:51.756632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.869181
License: Public Domain

BILLINGS, Judge,
dissenting.
Because the principal opinion is contrary to the decisional law of this state, I dissent. In effect, the opinion determines that the 1943 Civil Code and our Rules 55.27 and 44.01 have changed the long established law that a party may by his voluntary actio?as waive jurisdiction over the person and insufficiency of process. These matters are “mere personal privilege”, which may be waived by the person entitled to assert it, as, for example, by obtaining an extension of time in which to plead, or by filing an application for change of venue, or by agreeing to a resetting or a continuance, or by entering an appearance. Hutchinson v. Steinke, 353 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Mo.App.1962).
Recent cases reiterate the doctrine. In State ex rel. Sperandio v. Clymer, 581 S.W.2d 377, 384 (Mo. banc 1979), this Court said:
The general principle is that if a party takes any action which recognizes that the cause is in court and assumes an attitude that the jurisdiction of the court has been acquired, he is bound thereby and the action amounts to a general appearance.
In Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App.1976), it is said:
With the exception of an objection to the jurisdiction over the subject matter, if a party takes any action in a case which recognizes the case as being in court, this will amount to a general appearance. Thus, where he seeks relief he necessarily assumes the attitude that the jurisdiction of the court has been acquired and, having taken that position, he *363is bound thereby and will not be heard afterwards to say otherwise.
In State ex rel. A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967), there was a defective summons in a juvenile court case. However, counsel entered his appearance as counsel for the persons having custody of the child (the relators) and requested permission to examine the file. Thereafter, the relators moved to dismiss the action on the ground of defective summons and service of process. The court held that the request by counsel to examine the file was affirmative in nature and called for affirmative action by the court, stating as follows:
If a party does any act which recognizes the case as in court, he submits to the jurisdiction of the court. This means any act that recognizes the case as pending in court, such as the seeking of some affirmative relief at the hands of the court.
Id. at 273.
The court explained the reasoning behind this doctrine by quoting from 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appearances § 16, at 491-92 (1962), as follows:
The reason underlying the doctrine is that no such action can be taken unless the court has jurisdiction of the defendant’s person, and he is not entitled to any such affirmative relief or favorable ruling unless the court has such jurisdiction. When he seeks such relief, he necessarily assumes the attitude that jurisdiction has been acquired, and having taken that position he is bound thereby, and will not be heard afterward to say otherwise.
Id. at 273.
Turning to the facts before it, the court went on to say as follows:
We are unable to see how relators can make such request of a court through their attorney, which shall be of such a character as shall justify the court in acting upon it, unless the relators are to be regarded as in some way making an appearance. Through their attorney they invoke the action of the court. The request was made in writing by their authorized representative and in our opinion that would constitute an appearance. It has been held that any action on the part of the defendant in a case, except to object to the jurisdiction, which recognizes the case as in court, will amount to a general appearance.

Id.

The court stated further as follows:
Such a general appearance cures any and all defects of service of process .... As will be noted the motion of relators in the Juvenile Court to dismiss the action wherein they attack the jurisdiction of the court over their persons, was filed subsequent to the appearance of relators’ counsel and request for action by the court ....
In view of what we have said we rule that the entry of appearance of Jerome M. Steiner, as attorney for relators, coupled with his request for some action on the part of the court, constituted a general entry of appearance and had the effect of waiving any defects in the Summons served upon the relators and therefore the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over the persons of the relators.
Id. at 274.
Here, Mayo by filing an application for an extension of time was requesting action by the Court in the pending suit. Under the foregoing authorities this constituted a general appearance. The alternative writ should be made peremptory.1

. The writer has borrowed extensively from a proposed opinion prepared by Seiler, J., (now retired) which was not adopted in an earlier submission of this case.