Act 91 Q on Jurisdiction

[WeThePeopleHaveHadEnough]

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?

 

[adjusterjack]

But I do not see where the opinion addresses a complete LACK of an Act 91 notice.

Why would it? If the case involved a defective notice there would be no need to address what would happen when the notice was not sent at all.

If you want the answer to that question you will have to find a case decision that addresses that particular issue.

There are several cases involving Act 91 notices at Google Scholar.

act 91 notice - Google Scholar

You'll have to study them to find the answer to your question.