where he generally ate and slept and kept most of the belongings he used regularly. Ignoring the record and the jury’s function as factfinder, St. Paul asserts that these facts indicate that Andrew was in fact residing with his roommate at the Pine Street apartment. However, a reasonable jury could find that he was also “living with” his parents. Such a finding would be supported by evidence of record and would be consistent with Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania law is clear that a person can live in more than one place. See, e.g., McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 19 Pa.Cmwlth. 383, 339 A.2d 634, 636 (1975) (“It is well settled that a person can have more than one residence.”) Cf. National Development Corp. v. Triad Holding Corp., 930 F.2d 253 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). V. In short, the majority errs in holding
holding that service was proper where a copy of the summons and complaint was left with the defendants wife at the defendants maryland house in which the defendant had lived before moving ahead of his family to arizona where he had purchased a house intending never to return to maryland and to move his family to arizona noting that the service was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of service at the defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode where the service succeeded in actually apprising him of the lawsuit holding that one of several houses throughout the world among which the defendant divided his time constituted a dwelling house or usual place of abode for purpose of service of process regardless of the facts that it was not the defendants principal domicile and that he spent comparatively little time there holding that one of the twelve or so homes throughout the world among which the individual defendant divided his time constitutes a dwelling house or usual place of abode for purposes of service of process even though that home is not the defendants principal domicile and even though he may spend comparatively little time there holding that actual notice of lawsuit is no substitute for substantial compliance with frcp 4d1 requiring service on person of defendant on suitable resident at defendants dwelling or on defendants agent a  judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void and may be set aside at any time pursuant to fedrcivp 60b4 personal jurisdiction is established either by proper service of process or by the defendants waiver of any defect in the service of process holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition