(per curiam). The appellants here first claim that their, due process rights were violated by the district court’s failure to provide them with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Notwithstanding their complaints about lack of formal service, any failure to provide notice was harmless because the appellants received actual notice and appeared. First, they filed a motion to quash the writs of garnishment issued to UBS and BOA on November 2, 2011. Then, on February 12, 2013, they filed a brief opposing a lift of the stay. Finally, they filed multiple motions opposing entry of judgment. Therefore, because they appeared, the appellants were not prejudiced by the lack of notice because they received actual notice. Cf. Murphy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 534 F.2d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). The Rule 59(e) motion does not save the
holding the notice of appearance was not a motion under rule 12b2 4 or 5 and therefore the filing of the notice constituted a voluntary appearance by the defendants in this action which was the equivalent of the service of the summons upon them holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that party waived special appearance holding that former husband waived any defects in service of process by appearing at the first contempt proceeding holding that a partys voluntary appearance waived any potential defects founded on service or venue problems