747, 749 (Minn. App.1997). Appellants argue that the district court erred in finding that they waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction through their participation in the litigation. See generally D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 92-S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d 124 (1972) (indicating that in a civil suit defendant has a constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to defend, but that right can be waived). The defense of personal jurisdiction is deemed waived if not raised as a defense, made by motion, or included in a responsive pleading. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08(a); see also Majestic, Inc. v. Berry, 593 N.W.2d 251, 258 (Minn.App.1999). In addition, rule 12.08 does not “preclude waiver by implication.” Patterson v. Wu Family Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863, 868 (Minn. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). It has long been the rule
recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service 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 defendant waives the defense of insufficient service of process despite asserting the defense by answer by affirmatively invoking the jurisdiction of the district court to obtain partial summary judgment without earlier or simultaneously moving to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process holding that the defense of insufficient process was waived because it was not raised by the defendant in its answer but later in its response to the plaintiffs request for default judgment