1. Whether the Super. Ct abused its discretion when it failed to exercise its vested discretion by refusing to rule on a crucial evidentiary issue directly pertaining to the main issue raised in defendant's MTQ regarding plaintiffs fraud that rendered the summons defective on its face?

2. Whether a MTQ should be granted when a summons is defective on its face because a defendant was fraudulently named on the summons; as when a defective summons is served, the service is fatally deficient and ineffective, rendering the court no jurisdiction over defendants?

Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to rule on a crucial evidentiary issue regarding plaintiffs' fraud that rendered the summons defective, and whether a Motion to Quash should be granted when a summons is defective on its face due to fraudulent naming of a defendant