Section 801.08 - Objection to personal jurisdiction(1) All issues of fact and law raised by an objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person or property as provided by s. 802.06(2) shall be heard by the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. If, after such a hearing on the objection, the court decides that it has jurisdiction, the case may proceed on the merits; if the court decides that it lacks jurisdiction, the defendant shall be given the relief required by such decision.(2) Factual determinations made by the court in determining the question of personal jurisdiction over the defendant shall not be binding on the parties in the trial of the action on the merits.(3) No guardian or guardian ad litem may, except as provided in this subsection, waive objection to jurisdiction over the person of the ward. If no objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the ward is raised pursuant to s. 802.06(2) , the service of an answer or motion by a guardian or guardian ad litem followed by a hearing or trial shall be equivalent to an appearance and waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the ward.Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 598 (1975); 1979 c. 110 s. 60 (7); Sup. Ct. Order, 101 Wis. 2d xi. A jurisdiction dispute may not be resolved on motion. Merco Distributing Corp. v. O & R Engines, Inc. 71 Wis. 2d 792, 239 N.W.2d 97 (1976). An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable by permission under s. 808.03(2). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp. 97 Wis. 2d 379, 294 N.W.2d 15 (1980). An order denying a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction under s. 801.08(1) is not a final order and is not appealable as of right under s. 808.03(1). Grulkowski v. DOT 97 Wis. 2d 615, 294 N.W.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1980). The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's request for an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff has no burden to prove jurisdictional facts prior to a hearing. Henderson v. Milex Products, Inc. 125 Wis. 2d 141, 370 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. App. 1985). Conducting pretrial discovery does not constitute "going to the merits of the case" under sub. (1) and does not waive an objection raised under s. 802.06(2). Honeycrest Farms v. Brave Harvestore Systems, 200 Wis. 2d 256, 546 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1789.