to Colorado, where the landlord knew the tenant to be — and not the rented premises, as the statute requires — would have been statutorily sufficient. The court stated that “[w]e simply make what we think is a commonsense application of that principle [of mailing as an additional assurance of notice when posting occurs] to the facts here.” Id. at 137. At the very least, actual notice is one indication that the notice given was “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.” Greene, supra, 456 U.S. at 449-50, 102 S.Ct. at 1877-78 (emphasis omitted). I recognize that actual notice may not overcome service that clearly fails to comply with any interpretation of the notice statute. See Moody, supra, 321 A.2d 562, 563 (<HOLDING>). However, where no prejudice is alleged by the
holding that notice was insufficient because it was slid under the tenants door instead of being posted regardless of the fact that the tenant actually received the notice recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice