WeThePeopleHaveHadEnough
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
In Beneficial Consumer Disc. Co. v. Vukman Sep 25, 2013, the Supreme Court states that a 'defective' Act 91 Notice did not affect Jurisdiction, but indicated that the procedural requirements were not met. This DEFECTIVE Act 91 (wrong or missing info on the properly served Act 91) was enough to remand back to the lower court for proper disposition. But I do not see where the opinion addresses a complete LACK of an Act 91 notice. If the Act 91 was sent to the North Pole or not sent at all, it is not defective, rather it was not sent. Is jurisdiction still obtained when the Act 91 Notice is not defective, it just was not sent to the Last Known Address and was returned to the sender?