the pending proceedings, with the exception of objecting to the court’s jurisdiction, will constitute a general appearance. Only two requirements must be met to render an act adequate to support the inference that there is an appearance: (1) knowledge of the pending proceedings and (2) an intent to appear. Ragnone v Wirsing, 141 Mich App 263, 265; 367 NW2d 369 (1985). A party that submits to the court’s jurisdiction may not be dismissed for not having received service of process. MCR 2.102(E)(2). These principles can be traced in this Court’s jurisprudence as far back as 1929. See Najdowski v Ransford, 248 Mich 465, 471-472; 227 NW 769 (1929). And the principles have not varied over time. See, e.g., Macomb Concrete Corp v Wexford Corp, 37 Mich App 423, 425; 195 NW2d 93 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Ragnone, supra at 265-266 (holding that when
holding a general appearance constitutes voluntary submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court holding that a party waives an objection by failing to request a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence before the district court holding that one of the effects of submitting to the courts jurisdiction by making a general appearance is that a party waives any objection to service of process holding that a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction holding that partys label of appearance as general or special does not control and that a request for continuance is a form of relief that a party may seek only by submitting to the courts jurisdiction