tion of whether her offer was accepted or rejected. In addition to speaking to Petitioner's Counsel, she faxed a letter on May 20 confirming her hospitalization in intensive care. She stated she spoke to the Petitioner's Counsel a few days before the eviction and told Petitioner's Counsel that she could not walk and that she was recuperating at her mother's home. She again showed her military identification and was in full military uniform.
The Attorney, who handled the case previously and spoke to the Respondent, testified. She admitted that she was aware of the Respondent's military status, her medical condition, her hospitalization and that she was under bed care. The attorney testified that she conducted a military website search on March 3, 2004, and, after the eviction, on June 22, 2004. The attorney testified that the website search showed that the Respondent was 'currently not on active military duty'. The attorney was unable to state what information was used to conduct the website search on the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center. The attorney also stated that she tried to negotiate to have the Respondent repurchase the subject premises. However, she admitted that she did not inform the Respondent that the negotiation had failed and her offer was rejected.
The Petitioner also produced a process server who did not have any knowledge of whether, when or how the eviction notice was served.
Discussion and Conclusion: