clear precisely what they mean and the facts of a particular case often prove to be crucial. Indeed, because of today’s environment of global travel, job mobility, and multiple residences, the meaning of the phrase has been blurred even further. The majority of cases interpreting the words in the context of determining the validity of service of process appear to have focused on their literal meaning.” 4A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1096 (3d ed.2002). Other courts have addressed the phrase “usual place of abode” in the context of service of process. A person can have more than one “usual place of abode,” provided that each contains sufficient indicia of permanence. National Dev. Co. v. Triad Holding Corp., 980 F.2d 258 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, courts look at the facts of each
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 the relevant time is the time of the employment decision 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 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