of Blocker’s first appearance at a hearing. At this hearing, he admitted that he “[cjould have been” served, as well as admitting to receiving documents in the mail. When told he had to pay support, he merely stated, “[cjan you give me any later date than that to give me time to come up with the money?” His only concern seemed to be that King’s child may not be his child; his concern was not insufficient service of process. At no time did Blocker allege that he did not actually receive process or that service was somehow defective. Not until he was arrested did such an issue seem to come to the court’s attention. Because Blocker made a general appearance, the defense of insufficient service of process had been waived. See MacDougall v. Kutina, 798 So.2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Service of process was not an adequate
holding that a partys voluntary appearance waived any potential defects founded on service or venue problems holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections holding that former husband waived any defects in service of process by appearing at the first contempt proceeding holding a successor corporation does not have a postsale duty to warn of product defects where the successor never succeeded to any service contracts was not aware of the products defects and did not know the location of the product at the time of plaintiffs injury holding that actual notice of lawsuit is no substitute for substantial compliance with frcp 4d1 requiring service on person of defendant on suitable resident at defendants dwelling or on defendants agent a  judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void and may be set aside at any time pursuant to fedrcivp 60b4 personal jurisdiction is established either by proper service of process or by the defendants waiver of any defect in the service of process