# Crouch v. Crouch

> Supreme Court of Missouri · November 9, 1982 · 641 S.W.2d 86

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773617

## Case

- **Full name:** Cheryl CROUCH, Respondent, v. Daniel CROUCH, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** November 9, 1982
- **Citations:** 641 S.W.2d 86; 1982 Mo. LEXIS 413
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Seiler
- **Judges:** Welliver, Higgins, Morgan, Donnelly, Seiler, Rendlen, Gunn, Billings
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773617

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that nonappearance cannot serve as the basis to find waiver of the defense of personal jurisdiction, and that a party is free to ignore proceedings if the party believes the trial court does not have personal jurisdiction
- finding that a personal judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void and may be attacked collaterally

## Opinion text

SEILER, Judge,
concurring in part.
I concur only with that portion of the opinion which holds that a defendant does not, by failing to appear, waive the right to contest the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over him. As the principal opinion says, this is the issue in the case.
However, that portion of the opinion, commencing with footnote 4, dealing with whether a voluntary appearance by a defendant in and of itself constitutes a waiver of lack of personal jurisdiction is not necessary to the decision and should be reserved for decision where the issue is directly before the court. No such issue is presented in the case at bar. That issue is presented, however, in State ex rel. White v. Marsh, No. 62754, set for hearing at the January 1983 term. The Marsh case should not be prejudged by dicta in the present case, *95 where the issue is not presented, briefed, or argued. The defendant did not enter a general appearance or take any action constituting a voluntary appearance in the present case. Therefore, the question of what effect this has as a waiver of lack of personal jurisdiction is not before us. We should reserve a decision on that point for the Marsh case, where it is squarely presented.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773617. Public record. Not legal advice.