Court Opinion

ID: 9529522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:51:42.637166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:50.233755
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: The general appearance concerned the citation proceedings. Don’s special and limited appearance and attached affidavit are apparently accepted as true by the majority. A review of the record shows, however, that the trial court never held a hearing on the merits of Don’s special and limited appearance. Saylor, as the majority confirms, stands for the proposition that a general appearance, postjudgment, does not submit a party to the jurisdiction of the court to make the judgment effective, where the court was without jurisdiction at the time judgment was entered. I agree. In Saylor, the trial court held a hearing on the question of service, and after judging the credibility of the witnesses, the court found that the defendant had not been served properly. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s action. In this case, the respondent’s conclusion in his brief simply “requests that this court reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.” I submit, however, that the trial court never held a hearing on the merits of the special and limited appearance. The trial court ruled only on the general appearance question, finding Don waived any right to attack the jurisdiction of the trial court. A ruling by this court on the merits of the special and limited appearance of Don, when no hearing thereon has been held, is premature.