a money judgment which can be enforced in Texas or elsewhere. In re Cannon, 993 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1999) (orig.proceeding). Whether a court has jurisdiction over a person is a question of law. Hotel Partners v. Craig, 993 S.W.2d 116, 120 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1994, writ denied). When filing a special appearance, the defendant has the burden to negate all bases of personal jurisdiction. CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex.1996). Here, appellant alleged as the sole jurisdictional basis the trial court’s “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of this case as a result of prior proceedings.” Unless negated by appellee, this was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. See, e.g., In Interest of Kuykendall, 957 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1997, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Garza v. Garza, 666 S.W.2d 205,
holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that court had jurisdiction where no separate judgment had been entered even though notice of appeal was not timely filed as measured from the final decision holding that the biological father was not entitled to notice of adoption proceeding where he failed to properly legitimate his child holding father waived error where he failed to contest mothers assertion that court had jurisdiction based upon prior proceedings even though the prior proceeding was a registration of a kansas judgment holding that alleged biological father who sought to establish paternity waived constitutional error though it was undisputed that father had received no notice or hearing on prior paternity adjudication that created bar