Cited by

(stating that “[w]hen a default is entered, a defaulted party loses all rights to litigate the merits of the cause of action,” but can participate prospectively in the default judgment proceedings); (“So long as parties are in default, they have no right to partici

Cf. Tarr v. Superior Court (Jensen), (In a civil suit, filing a responsive pleading constitutes a general appearance evidencing an intent to submit to the court’s jurisdiction.); Nat’l Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Homes Sales, Inc., (same).

¶12 After the entry of default, “a defaulted party loses all rights to litigate the merits of the cause of action.” Tarr v. Superior Ct. In & For Pima Cnty.

(noting participation in a pending case, other than to contest personal jurisdiction, subjects parties to the court's jurisdiction); ¶ 23 (App. 2008) (noting cases finding waiver by conduct where party asserted lack of personal jurisdiction in answer bu

(party waives personal jurisdiction defense by omitting it from a motion or responsive pleading); 7 IMH, et al. v. MANIATIS, et al. Decision of the Court (participating in a pending case, other than to contest jurisdiction, subjects defendants to the court’s jurisdiction).

A void default judgment due to an ineffective entry of default is not a harmless defect because the “defaulted party loses all rights to litigate the merits of the cause of action.” Tarr v. Superior Court In & For Pima Cty.

Ct. In and For Pima Cty., (any act by which the defendant comes before the court and recognizes the case as pending, with the exception of a special appearance to contest jurisdiction over his or her person, will constitute a general appearance and subject him or her to the jurisdiction of the court).

See Tarr v. Superior Court (Jensen), (citations omitted).

Generally, “any action on the part of a party except to object to personal jurisdiction that recognizes the case [i]s in court will constitute a general appearance,” Burton, 205 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 8 ( and Austin, 10 Ariz. App. at 477), and “it is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.” Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (1978

(holding that the late filing of an answer "constitute^ an appearance under Rule 55(b)(2)”).

-52 , -71 (1984) (any action taken to assert the defense of insufficiency of service of process must be limited in scope and narrowly argued because the defense is waived by filing a responsive pleading or by seeking affirmative relief).

Since Hindi , Arizona decisions consistently refer to “general appearances.” Ta rr v. Superior Court (Sherrill), , State ex rel.

Defendants argue that an order vacating a default judgment is not appealable, citing *475 , aff'd on other grounds

aff'd on other grounds, , *80 (1984).