If you have filed any papers arguing "any" issue other than a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or you or your attorney has physically appeared before the court and argued "any" issue other than personal jurisdiction, then you have waived the challenge of personal jurisdiction by asking the court to consider some other issue, and the court will hold you to that waiver.
Even a motion for a continuance will waive personal jurisdiction, because the subject matter of the continuance is "good cause" to delay a hearing, and the court must consider substantive CT law in making the decision to postpone a hearing.
Concerning your question about whether or not you have a "jurisdiction case," if you are asking whether or not service at your property in CT binds you to the personal jurisdiction of a CT court, in ARGENT MORTG. CO., LLC v. HUERTAS, 288 Conn. 568, 953 A.2d 868 (2008), the CT Supreme Court held that a person who is incarcerated when served at his/her "usual place of abode" within the State is properly served pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-57.
The Court goes on to write:Federal courts
also have concluded that a person can have several places of abode concurrently. See, e.g., National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp.,930 F.2d 253, 257 (2d Cir.) (observing that, under federal rule of civil procedure
permitting service of process at individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode, "[t]here is nothing startling in the conclusion that a person can have two or more dwelling houses or usual places of abode, provided each contains sufficient indicia of permanence" [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied sub nom. Khashoggi v. National Development Co., 502 U.S. 968, 112 S.Ct. 440, 116 L.Ed.2d 459 (1991).
Based upon the above-quoted language, in order to demonstrate that service on you was defective (which is not quite the same thing as the issue of "personal jurisdiction," though it is related), you would have to demonstrate facts which will show that there is no longer any indicia of permanence in your occupancy of the CT property at which you are alleged to have been served.
There is no bright-line determiner here -- its up to you to show that despite your owning a property in CT, that you no longer use it as your residence, and that any return to the property is
not for purposes of residency, but rather for maintenance or landlord purposes.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.