With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with instructions to order the modification retroactive to April 16, 2001. Because of the irregular nature of the settlement award, we conclude that the trial court did not err in including only the net portion of this award in Mark's income. Since the record is devoid of evidence regarding the impact on transferring the tax dependency exemptions on both parties and the children, we remand the case to the trial court for further determination in this regard. The order of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. FRIEDLANDER, J., and DARDEN, J., concur. 1 . A different result may obtain when the matter is one of jurisdiction of the person. Sudham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Mark's accounting of the settlement award

A: holding that a judgment entered without jurisdiction of the person is void unless the jurisdictional defect has been waived
B: holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity
C: holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect
D: holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process
A.