OPINION
LANCASTER, Justice.
Appellant JAG Investments, Inc. appeals from the court of appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s denial of JAG’s motion for summary judgment. JAG asks us to reverse the court of appeals’ holding that respondent Ryan Contracting, Inc. effectively served JAG in a mechanics’ hen action even though Ryan failed to serve JAG within the one-year time limit imposed by Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3 (2000). JAG also contends that the court of appeals erred when it failed to dismiss respondent GMH Asphalt Corporation’s cross-claim against JAG because Ryan never effectively served JAG and because GMH’s cross-claim does not stand on independent jurisdictional grounds. In short, JAG asks this court to- reverse the court of appeals’ decision and dismiss respondents’ mechanics’ lien actions for lack of personal jurisdiction. We agree that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over JAG and reverse.
In April 1997, Jagodzinski Development Corporation (JDC) hired Ryan to perform clearing, grading, sewer and water main installation, and street construction for the Fairway Hills residential development project in Chaska, Minnesota. JDC is a Minnesota corporation whose president and sole shareholder is Joe Jagodzinski. JAG is a Minnesota investment company that owned much of the Fairway Hills property that JDC planned to develop.1 Jim Jagodzinski is JAG’s sole shareholder and Joe Jagodzinski’s father. Ryan subcontracted with GMH to perform street and paving work.
On April 8, 1998, Ryan “served and filed a mechanics’ lien against the Fairway Hills property to recover amounts allegedly due from JDC. The lien listed Ryan’s last day of work as December 16, 1997. Ryan, however, claims that it performed additional work after the lien was filed and that its actual last day of work was September 13,1998.
On December 4, 1998, Ryan filed a lawsuit to foreclose on its lien.2 Ryan personally served JDC on the same, day by serving the summons and complaint on Joe Jagodzinski. Ryan did not personally serve JAG at this point,3 Nonetheless, [180]*180JAG served Ryan with an answer on December 23,1998, and raised the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that Ryan failed to serve JAG within the one-year time limit imposed by section 514.12, subd. 3, of the mechanics’ lien statutes. According to JAG, the one-year limit expired on December 16, 1998, because Ryan stated in its lien statement that it last performed work on December 16, 1997. On December 28, 1998, GMH, also named as a defendant in Ryan’s complaint, filed its answer and asserted a cross-claim against JAG in an attempt to foreclose its own mechanics’ hen.4 GMH mailed a copy of its answer to JAG’s attorney on December 28, 1998.
On July 15, 1999, JAG, JDC, and other defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In the memorandum of law supporting that motion, JAG argued for the dismissal of Ryan’s complaint and release of JAG’s property from Ryan’s and GMH’s mechanics’ liens based on lack of personal jurisdiction. JAG also argued for summary judgment based on the merits of the claim. In August 1999, Ryan personally served JAG.
We note that both Ryan and JAG seem to agree that JAG, not JDC, was the owner of the Fairway Hills property. Ryan alleged as much in its complaint and JAG admitted so in its answer. However, in Ryan’s mechanics’ hen statement, it alleged that JAG, JDC, and Joe Jagodzinski were the “present owners of the [premises,” and in two other documents submitted to the court attached to Joe Jagodzinski’s affidavit, JDC was designated as the owner of the premises. For purposes of this appeal, however, we will assume that JAG is the owner of the property; as owner, JAG is an essential defendant to Ryan’s lien action because mechanics’ hens attach to property interests. Dunham Assocs. v. Group Invs., Inc., 301 Minn. 108, 118, 223 N.W.2d 376, 383 (1974). Whether JDC may have a property interest in Fairway Hills is a question properly left to the district court in Ryan’s and GMH’s claims against JDC; it was not raised to this court and JDC is not a party to this appeal.
On September 21, 1999, the district court held that it had personal jurisdiction over JAG even though it concluded that it is “undisputed that [Ryan] never served [JAG] * * ⅝ individually with the Summons and Complaint during” the one-year time limit of section 514.12, subd. 3. The court noted that December 16, 1997, was Ryan’s last day of work and therefore Ryan had until December 16, 1998, to serve JAG. Ryan served JDC by the deadline, but did not individually serve JAG until August 1999.
In deciding that Ryan effectively served JAG and that JAG was “properly ‘made a party’ ” to Ryan’s hen action, the district court relied on an alternative theory of service:
[B]oth [Ryan] and GMH Asphalt argue that the hen foreclosures are still valid. [JAG] has appeared and participated in every aspect of this case. In addition, Defendant JDC and [JAG] are undertaking the development of the subject property as a “joint venture” and * * * the attorney representing all of the JAG, [et al.] Defendants was served and did file answers and responsive papers on behalf of his clients. Furthermore, the action itself, which names [JAG as a party], was commenced within the required time period. For these reasons, [181]*181[Ryan] and GMH argue that property owners have been made party to the action.
The Court agrees and finds that, based on all the reasons just discussed, [JAG is a] legitimate part[y] to this action. * * * Thus, [JAG is] subject to judgment on the foreclosure of the mechanic’s liens and the motion for summary judgment on this point is denied.
In a published opinion, the court of appeals agreed with the district court’s analysis. It held that “[s]ervice of process on JAG was effective because JAG’s joint-venture partner was properly served, JAG received actual notice, and JAG was not prejudiced.” Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. JAG Inva, Inc., 609 N.W.2d 642, 647 (Minn.App.2000). The court of appeals held that, because the district court had personal jurisdiction over JAG in Ryan’s lien action, the district court also had personal jurisdiction over JAG in GMH’s lien action.5 Id. at 646 n. 3. JAG appealed.
Generally, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not ap-pealable. McGowan v. Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830, 832 (Minn.1995). However, there are exceptions to that general rule; for instance, a denial of a motion for summary judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction is immediately appealable. Id. On appeal from a denial of summary judgment, we determine whether any genuine issues of material fact remain and whether the district court erred in applying the law. See Zank v. Larson, 552 N.W.2d 719, 721 (Minn.1996). Specifically, this case requires us to consider whether service of process was effectuated and therefore whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over JAG. Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law, which we review de novo. Patterson v. Wu Family Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863, 866 (Minn.2000). In this case, whether personal jurisdiction exists will depend in part on a construction of the mechanics’ lien statutes. Statutory construction is also a question of law which we review de novo. State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256, 258 (Minn.2000).
The mechanics’ lien statutes set forth the requirements for commencing a lien action, including a time limit within which the action must be commenced. The lien statutes govern the procedural requirements for initiating and maintaining a mechanics’ lien action insofar as they are inconsistent with or in conflict with the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Minn. R. Civ. P. 81.01(a) & App. A. Under the lien statutes, an action may be commenced
by any lienholder who has filed a lien statement for record and served a copy thereof on the owner pursuant to section 514.08, and all other such lienholders shall be made defendants therein. The summons shall state that the complaint has been filed with the court administrator and shall be of no effect unless such complaint be in fact so filed.
Minn.Stat. § 514.11. The mechanics’ lien statutes also provide a one-year time limit on the commencement of the action:
No lien shall be enforced in any case unless the holder thereof shall assert the same, either by filing a complaint or answer with the court administrator, within one year after the date of the last item of the claim as set forth in the recorded lien statement; and, no person [182]*182shall be bound by any judgment in such action unless made a party thereto within the year * ⅜ *.
Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3 (emphasis added). This one-year time limit is at the center of this dispute.
I. Joint-Venture Service
Ryan and GMH urge us to adopt the lower courts’ conclusions that Ryan properly served JAG through its “joint venture partner,” JDC. Ryan argues that its service on JDC within the one-year time limit should be effective as to JAG because JDC and JAG are engaged in a joint venture. We have not decided whether service on one joint-venture member satisfies service as to another joint-venture member, and no rule expressly permits such service.
Both lower courts assumed, without analysis, that a joint venture exists between JAG and JDC. JAG protests the lower courts’ decisions because they are based on joint-venture theory of service that Ryan never argued to the district court. GMH did make reference to a joint venture between JDC and JAG, but did not offer it as a theory of service. Rather, GMH argued that, because a joint venture existed between JDC and JAG, JDC had a property interest in the Fairway Hills property and therefore GMH’s hen should attach against JDC. JAG does not concede that a joint venture exists. Although the question of whether a joint venture exists is an unresolved factual issue, for the following reasons it is not a factual question material to the resolution of this case. See, e.g., O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996) (“A fact is material if its resolution will affect the outcome of a case.”).
Neither the mechanics’ Hen statutes nor the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permit joint-venture-based service. In the absence of a statute expressly permitting such service in the context of mechanics’ liens, this court will not presume that one exists. See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269, 95 N.W.2d 6, 11-12 (1959) (“Where failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression concerning the elements of the statutory standard is the vice of the enactment, courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature.”). Ryan’s arguments also do not persuade us to construe the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow service on a party through service on its joint-venture partner. Moreover, “[w]e have not treated service of process as a mere technicality, as it serves the important function of actual, formal notice to the defendant of the action.” Patterson, 608 N.W.2d at 867. Recognizing the important function that service of process fulfills, and recognizing the due process implications involved, we have always required parties to adhere strictly to the service requirements. See, e.g., Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Minn.1997) (“Service of process in a manner not authorized by the rule is ineffective service.”); Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 459, 119 N.W. 404, 404 (1909) (“[Sjervice must accord strictly with statutory requirements.”). Accordingly, we decline to adopt a joint-venture service rule and therefore need not consider whether Ryan satisfied such a rule.
The court of appeals also supported its decision by stating that JAG was not prejudiced by Ryan’s improper service because JAG had actual notice of the suit. We have recognized, however, that “actual notice of the lawsuit will not subject defendants to personal jurisdiction without substantial compliance with” the rules of service. Tullis, 570 N.W.2d at 311. Ryan made no effort to comply with service re[183]*183quirements because it did not attempt to serve JAG within the one-year time limit imposed by Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3. Accordingly, we conclude that JAG’s actual notice of the lien action, without more, is insufficient to subject JAG to personal jurisdiction.
II. Ryan’s Alternative Arguments
Ryan argues that even if we do not accept the court of appeals’ joint-venture theory of service, we can nonetheless uphold that court’s decision. Ryan contends that, contrary to the court of appeals’ and district court’s conclusions, it did serve JAG within the one-year time limit imposed by the lien statutes and therefore made JAG a party to its lien action. Alternatively, Ryan asserts that JAG waived its jurisdictional defense through its participation in this case. Both lower courts stated, without analysis, that Ryan did not serve JAG individually within the one-year time limit imposed by section 514.12, subd. 3. Because the lower courts decided that Ryan effectively served JAG, they did not address the waiver argument.
a. One-Year Time Limit
Ryan first argues that it satisfied the one-year time limit and properly commenced its action because it filed its summons and complaint within one year of December 16, 1997, its last day of work as listed on its lien statement. In making this argument, Ryan asserts that the fundamental requirement of section 514.12 is not the serving of the complaint, but the filing of the complaint. Ryan acknowledges that provisions that create a mechanics’ lien are strictly construed. It argues, however, that the one-year service limit of section 514.12, subd. 3, is an enforcement provision to be liberally construed. We disagree.
The requirements for the attachment and creation of a mechanics’ lien are to be strictly construed. Dolder v. Griffin, 323 N.W.2d 773, 780 (Minn.1982). After a lien is created, however, we liberally construe the lien statutes as remedial acts. Id. The one-year limitation of the lien statutes is no ordinary statute of limitations; it puts a limit to the life and duration of the lien. Bauman v. Metzger, 145 Minn. 133, 138, 176 N.W. 497, 499 (1920). The statutes require that not only filing a complaint, but also making the defendant-landowner a party to the suit— accomplished by serving the defendant-landowner with the summons — must be done within one year. Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3; see Smith v. Hurd, 50 Minn. 503, 507, 52 N.W. 922, 922 (1892) (holding, in the context of a mechanics’ lien action, that as to each defendant a lien action “is commenced and is pending only from the time of service of the summons on him”6 (emphasis added)). If these requirements are not met, the lien and any cause of action flowing therefrom cease to exist at the end of the year. Bauman, 145 Minn. at 138, 176 N.W. at 499. Contrary to Ryan’s argument, then, we conclude that the one-year time limit on service, like the one-year time limit on filing the complaint, is not merely an enforcement provision of the statute but rather is a require[184]*184ment for the creation of a lien action and must be strictly construed.
Here, although Ryan filed its complaint within one year from its last day of work, it did not serve JAG within that one year. Therefore, Ryan’s lien action against JAG ceased to exist one year from Ryan’s last day of work. See, e.g., Thompson Yards, Inc. v. Standard Home Bldg. Co., 161 Minn. 143, 146-47, 201 N.W. 300, 302 (1924) (“[O]ne is not a party to an action until he is in a position to be bound by the judgment therein. That does not come about until the court acquires jurisdiction of his person by the service on him of the summons or by his voluntary appearance.”); Smith, 50 Minn. at 507, 52 N.W. at 922 (“[W]hen [a lien] action is commenced as to any defendant there must be an existing cause of action against him, and the right to a remedy upon it.”); Steinmetz v. St. Paul Trust Co., 50 Minn. 445, 447, 52 N.W. 915, 915 (1892) (“Of course, no judgment to enforce a lien against the land could be rendered unless the owner is made a party by being brought into the action.”); see also Guillaume & Assocs., Inc. v. Don-John Co., 336 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.1983) (“We have strictly interpreted the time limitations [of the lien statutes] insofar as they determine when a lien is established and when it terminates.”).
Ryan’s second argument is that it satisfied the service requirements of section 514.12, subd. 3, because it served JAG within one year from its last day of work. Ryan claims that even though its lien statement and complaint list December 16, 1997, as its last day of work, its actual last day of work at the Fairway Hills property was September 13, 1998. By serving JAG on August 2, 1999, Ryan argues that it achieved service within the one-year limit.
Applying the strict construction standard that we have determined is appropriate for the one-year time limit of section 514.12, we conclude that Ryan’s argument is defeated by the plain language of that section. The statute requires that the complaint be filed, and that service be made, “within one year after the date of the last item of the claim as set forth in the recorded lien statement.” Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3 (emphasis added). The statute expressly creates a one-year time limit that begins to run on the last day of work a lienholder records in the lien statement. This conclusion is supported not only by the plain language of section 514.12, subd. 3, but also by strong policy considerations: “It has been the policy of our statutes creating mechanic’s liens to fix a definite time when such liens should terminate, to the end that those interested in the property, or dealing with it, might know with certainty when it was free from such claims * * Bauman, 145 Minn. at 140, 176 N.W. at 500. For these reasons, we hold that the one-year time limit set forth in Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3, begins to run on the last day of work as listed in the recorded lien statement. Accordingly, Ryan had until December 16, 1998, to serve JAG and thus its August 1999 service was untimely.
b. Waiver
Ryan argues that even if we determine that it did not satisfy the one-year service requirement, we can still uphold the court of appeals’ decision because JAG effectively waived its jurisdictional defense through its participation in the case. In JAG’s answers to Ryan and GMH, JAG affirmatively raised a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction. However, Ryan accurately points out that a party can waive a jurisdictional defense. See Miss. Valley Dev. Corp. v. Colonial Enters., Inc., 300 Minn. 66, 73, 217 N.W.2d 760, 764 (1974). Ryan directs our atten[185]*185tion to the following actions by JAG as support for its waiver argument: (1) JAG waited seven months after answering before it moved for summary judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) JAG served discovery on parties in the interim; (3) JAG attended depositions and noticed depositions on the merits of the claims; (4) JAG attended court-ordered mediation; and (5) JAG filed a motion7 in June 1999 to compel discovery responses and request reimbursement of costs and fees.
We recently revisited the issue of when waiver may result even after a party raises a personal jurisdiction defense. Patterson, 608 N.W.2d at 864. In Patterson, we explained that “simple participation in [a lawsuit] does not, standing alone, amount to waiver of a jurisdictional defense. Rather, it is the failure to provide the court an opportunity to rule on the defense before affirmatively invoking the court’s jurisdiction on the merits of the claim” that leads to waiver. Id. at 868. Here, JAG moved for summary judgment on the merits, but also asked for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Where a party simultaneously invokes the court’s jurisdiction on the merits and asks the court to rule on a jurisdictional defense, waiver will not result unless other circumstances clearly demonstrate the party’s acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 869 (stating that failure to move for dismissal based on a personal jurisdiction defense, before or contemporaneously with a motion for summary judgment on the merits, results in waiver of that defense). Such circumstances are not present in this case. Thus, JAG did not waive its jurisdictional defense.
III. GMH’s Cross Claim
Having determined that Ryan did not serve JAG and that the district court had no personal jurisdiction over JAG in Ryan’s lien action,, we are left with the question of whether GMH’s cross-claim against JAG survives. Because the court of appeals concluded that the district court did have personal jurisdiction over JAG in Ryan’s lien action, it did not reach this issue.8
Under the mechanics’ lien statutes, once a lien action is filed other possible lienholder-claimants with claims arising from the same improvements cannot initiate their own action but must intervene in the original action by answer. Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 2.9 GMH originally was named as a [186]*186defendant in Ryan’s complaint and asserted its own lien action against JAG in its answer. GMH’s lien listed its last day of work as June 6, 1998. GMH mailed its answer, which included the cross-claim against JAG, to JAG’s attorney on December 28,1998.
JAG argues that the district court never had personal jurisdiction over JAG and that the court’s lack of jurisdiction extends to the cross-claim because GMH did not personally serve JAG within one year of its last day of work. JAG further argues that, if the district court never had personal jurisdiction over JAG in Ryan’s lien action, then GMH’s cross-claim must stand on independent jurisdictional grounds in order to survive JAG’s motion to dismiss. GMH does not disagree, but contends that independent jurisdictional grounds do support its cross-claim because it satisfied the service requirements set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.02 by mailing its answer to JAG’s attorney in December 1998. JAG responds that it was not a party at the time GMH mailed its answer and that rule 5.02 is not applicable to non-parties. JAG argues that GMH was thus required to satisfy the personal service requirements as set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03 and, because GMH failed to do so, its lien action against JAG must be dismissed.
Generally, personal service is governed by Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03.10 As noted above, however, the mechanics’ lien statutes govern the requirements for initiating and maintaining a lien action. See Minn. Stat. § 514.11 (“The action may be commenced by any lienholder who has filed a lien statement for record and served a copy thereof on the owner pursuant to section 514.08, and all other such lienhold-ers shall be made defendants therein.”). Nonetheless, the rules of civil procedure apply to lien actions unless the mechanics’ lien statutes are inconsistent or in conflict with the rules of civil procedure. Minn. R. Civ. P. 81.01(a) & App. A. Here, section 514.11 does not specify how a summons should be served in order to commence a lien action and therefore the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically rule 4.03, apply and govern service in a hen action.11
Until served pursuant to rule 4.03, one is not made a “party” to an action. Thompson Yards, 161 Minn. at 146-47, 201 N.W. at 302 (holding that one is not a party to [187]*187an action until one is in a position to be bound by the judgment, and one cannot be bound by a judgment until the court acquires jurisdiction over that individual), see generally Minn. R. Civ. P. 3-5. If a person is not made a party to a lien action within the one-year time limit of section 514.12, subd. 3, that person is not bound by any judgment resulting from the action; in effect, the hen is terminated as to that person. Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3; see Bauman, 145 Minn. at 140, 176 N.W. at 500.
GMH does not argue that it personally served JAG pursuant to rule 4.03, but rather contends that it met the service requirements set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.02 and thereby made JAG a party to the lien action. Rule 5.02 permits service by mailing an answer to a party’s attorney.12 GMH argues that when JAG filed its answer to Ryan’s complaint, notwithstanding the fact that JAG had not been served by Ryan, JAG made an “appearance” under Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.0113 and therefore GMH was permitted to serve JAG pursuant to rule 5.02. We agree that, by answering, JAG took the type of action that constitutes making an “appearance” pursuant to rule 5.01. However, rule 5.01 states that “[a] party appears when that party serves or files any paper in the proceeding,” and rule 5.02 permits service by mail upon a “party ” or the party’s attorney. Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.01, 5.02 (emphasis added). Both rules clearly govern service on one who is already a party. Thus, JAG had to be a party to the action before GMH could avail itself of the more lenient service requirements of rule 5.02. Because Ryan never served JAG, JAG was not a party to the lien action.14 Under these circumstances, GMH could have made JAG a party only by personally serving its answer on JAG pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03 on or before June 6, 1999. Because GMH failed to do so, GMH’s cross-claim was not supported by independent jurisdictional grounds and thus the district court had no personal jurisdiction over JAG in GMH’s mechanics’ lien foreclosure action.
We recognize that because Ryan initiated this lien action, GMH was bound by Minn.Stat. § 514.12, subd. 2, to intervene by answer in the original proceeding and could not commence its own lien action. However, the survival of a cross-claim in a lien action is not dependent on whether the initial plaintiff, here Ryan, effectively serves all defendants. To assure the survival of its cross-claim despite Ryan’s faulty service on JAG, GMH could have personally served its answer on JAG pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03. This requirement is consistent with the practice [188]*188already encouraged for lienholders. E.g., Stephen A. Melcher, Foreclosing Mechanic’s Liens And Suing Out Payment Bond Claims, in Minnesota Institute of Legal Education, Mechanic’s Liens & Payment Bonds § VII, p. 5 (1999) (“Any hen claimant which asserts its claim by answer ought to consider serving process and filing its own notice of Us pendens to avoid problems in the event that plaintiffs service or filing was defective.”); John G. Patterson, Enforcing a Mechanics’ Lien, in Minnesota State Bar Ass’n Continuing Legal Educ., A Comprehensive Guide to Mechanics’ Liens in Minnesota § VII, p. 9 (1999) (“If the plaintiff has failed to comply with any of the requirements of commencing foreclosure of its hen, such noncompliance could be fatal not only to the plaintiff but to the defendant hen claimants as well. The answering hen claimant must verify that the plaintiff has joined all interested parties in the action * * *. If an interested or responsible party was not joined, the answering hen claimant should join that party so complete rehef can be awarded to the answering hen claimant.”).
Further, as noted above, “[w]e have not treated service of process as a mere technicality,” Patterson, 608 N.W.2d at 867, and we have always required parties to adhere strictly to the service requirements, see, e.g., Tullis, 570 N.W.2d at 311 (“Service of process in a manner not authorized by the rule is ineffective service.”); Berryhill, 106 Minn. at 459, 119 N.W. at 404 (“[Sjervice must accord strictly with statutory requirements.”). Service rules should be clear; parties should not be left to guess what, under different factual scenarios, will be an acceptable method of service. Requiring strict comphance achieves this result.
In summary, we hold that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over JAG in either Ryan’s or GMH’s hen action. We therefore reverse the court of appeals’ decision and grant JAG’s motion for summary judgment.
Reversed.