concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion but write separately because I do not believe that Barbera waived his argument of insufficient service of process. The majority states that Barbera argued lack of sufficient service of process before the trial court but did not argue insufficient service of the notice of claim and notice of arbitration. Nonetheless, the majority addresses these issues because it holds that waiver would result in denying Barbera fundamental due process.
In his answer and counter-petition, Barbera alleges: he “was not served with a copy of the Arbitration Award ... nor was [he] properly served with a Notice of Arbitration,” appellant’s appendix at 21; “he was [not] properly served with a copy of any such Notice of Claim, Notice of Arbitration and/or timely Arbitration Award,” id. at 22; “[AIS] failed to serve [him] with notice of arbitration, and failed to serve the alleged Arbitration Award,” id.; and “[t]he Notice of Arbitration was not properly served upon [him],” id. at 24. Barbera argued the issue in his response and objection to AIS’s memorandum of law supporting arbitration award. Additionally, Barbera argued the issue at his hearing before the trial court stating: “I wasn’t properly served with a notice of claim ... I never got anything on that point to tell me that this was going to arbitration.” Id. at 67. The trial court then engaged in a lengthy discussion with Barbera regarding service of the notice of arbitration and the arbitration award.
Barbera appeared in this matter pro se. His arguments regarding insufficiency of service of the notice of claim and notice of arbitration may be inartful; however, they are plainly apparent from the record. Therefore, I fail to see how Barbera has waived the arguments on appeal. As a result, I would address Barbera’s arguments as preserved for appeal. In all other respects, I concur fully with the majority.