Court Opinion

ID: 9700580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:36:20.649175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:11.696232
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I disagree with the majority’s analysis on the issue of whether service was properly made by Objectors, I must dissent.
In this instance, I must agree with the Candidate and with the trial court that service was not properly made because it did not comport with the manner of service prescribed by the Election Code in conjunction with the Rule Returnable of Judge Mary Colins on March 17, 1999.
I would agree with the majority’s reasoning if the process server for Objectors simply had left the petition with the receptionist; at that point, service of the petition would have been made because the receptionist is an adult person in charge of the Candidate’s place of business. Howev*168er, here, the process server only attempted to hand the petition to the receptionist; he then removed the petition from the Candidate’s office reception area and placed it on the floor outside of the door to the Candidate’s office. By that action, the process server revoked any previous attempt at service. Objectors made no additional attempt at service.
As 'the trial court found, “[the Candidate] was neither served personally nor was service effectuated upon a person in charge of his place of business.” Where there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings,1 and those findings are the only grounds for the appellate challenge, our scope of review does not permit reversal. In Re: Primary Election of May 19, 1998, 721 A.2d 1156 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the petition to set aside the Candidate’s nomination petition.

. The majority states that "Judge Tereshko found that the receptionist was ‘not in charge’ of the candidate’s office; therefore, service was not proper.” (Majority op. at 166.) However, the trial court actually found that service was not effected on a person in charge of the Candidate’s office. Because there is no dispute that the process server never effected service on the receptionist, who at the time was in charge of the Candidate’s place of business, the trial court's finding is supported by the record evidence.