v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Comm ’n, 732 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1999) (citing Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1994)). Summary judgment is proper only when the uncontroverted allegations of record and submitted affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Potter v. Herman, 762 A.2d 1116, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2000). To dispose of the pending motion for summary judgment in an efficient manner, the court will first address LaS cola’s challenge to improper and untimely service of process. A party who fails to object to service of process in the form of preliminary objections waives that claim. Cinque v. Asare, 585 A.2d 490, 492 (Pa. Super. 1990); Martin v. Gerner, 481 A.2d 903, 907 (Pa. Super. 1984) (<HOLDING>). LaScola’s current counsel filed an entry of
holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections holding that when defects in a petition raise a question of the trial courts subject matter jurisdiction over the action the issue may properly be raised for the first time on appeal holding that a hearing must be held to determine credibility in preliminary injunction cases holding that removing defendant could not establish fraudulent joinder based on waivable defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction or defects in service of process available only to joined defendants holding that former husband waived any defects in service of process by appearing at the first contempt proceeding