¶ 10 Although Appellants’ legal analysis of Sigmund and Rhode Island’s property law may be correct, Carol Ann Denkewicz consented to the jurisdiction of the Arizona courts by not asserting her personal jurisdiction defense until well after the conclusion of the major events of this litigation — the trial and the valuation hearing. In contrast, the spouses in Sigmund sought immediate relief from involvement in the Arizona proceeding by motions to dismiss. By allowing the claims against her to proceed until just before entry of judgment without objecting, Carol Ann Denkewicz waived her potential defense that she was merely a bystander caught up in her husband’s unilateral actions. See Nat’l Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434, 438, 682 P.2d 439, 443 (App.1984) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11 On these facts, the trial court did not
holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal holding that a judgment entered without jurisdiction of the person is void unless the jurisdictional defect has been waived holding that it is not holding that we do not need here to determine when a timely application for ruling on the jurisdictional defense must be presented suffice it to say that after a judgment on the merits has been entered it is too late