permitted to defend against the action brought against her; she is not required to sit idly by at trial, allowing the other party to prevail while hoping she will win the jurisdictional issue on appeal. State v. Omega Painting, Inc., 468 N.E.2d 287, 292 n. 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) ("A contrary conclusion could well invite rash or hasty pleading, or the risky acceptance of a default judgment in the hope that it could later be set aside for lack of personal jurisdiction. This is clearly not the type of practice our rules of procedure envisioned."), opinion on reh'g 464 N.E.2d 940 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (correcting factual misstatement in original opinion), trams. denied. The motions filed by Mother did not constitute consent to the trial court's jurisdiction over her person. See id. at 290-292 (<HOLDING>). Subsection (6) provides the Monroe Circuit
holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding that procedures were adequate even though the physician did not have the opportunity to challenge the results of an audit before requesting a hearing holding that the defendant waived the issue of change of venue where the trial court denied the motion for a change of venue without prejudice stating that it was willing to reconsider the motion at any time during the jury selection process but the defendant never renewed the motion for a change of venue holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages holding the state had not requested affirmative relief from the court by appearing in the action requesting an extension of time in which to file an answer or requesting a change of venue