409 A.2d 882 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1979
Appellants contend that the lower court erred in granting appellee’s petition to open a default judgment. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the order of the lower court.
Appellee testified in a deposition pursuant to his petition to open judgment that he lives alone in an apartment and that he works at one job during the day and at another job most evenings. Appellee also stated that he first received notice of this action when he received a letter from his insurance carrier’s attorney, dated December 28, 1977, informing him that a default judgment had been entered against him.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in effect at the time this action was instituted
In the instant case, there was only one return of “not found” by the sheriff before appellants attempted to serve the defendant through the Secretary of the Commonwealth. This is insufficient evidence that appellee concealed his whereabouts. Gonzales v. Polis, supra; Austin v. Goode, supra. Thus, appellants did not perfect service when they served the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Because appellee was not properly served, the lower court was correct in opening the judgment and allowing appellee to file an answer.
Order affirmed.
. Rules 2077 and 2079 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure were amended on April 26, 1979, and became effective 30 days after May 12, 1979. Rule 2077(a)(2) as amended provides: “The rules of this chapter apply to . . .an action against a resident individual who obstructs or prevents service of process by concealing his whereabouts or otherwise.” Rule 2079 as amended changes the method of serving such an individual. See Rule 2079(d).