Appeal of P.S. Docket No. MD-27 -- BRUCE C. WALTZER and SEWALL S. FINE


 In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between:

 BRUCE C. WALTZER
 and
 SEWALL S. FINE

 P.S. Docket No. MD-27

 08/15/88

 Lemert, James E.; Administrative Judge

INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute was forwarded for resolution pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 153.72 and 39 C.F.R. Part 965. The matter involves a dispute between Bruce C. Waltzer and Sewall S. Fine concerning the delivery of mail addressed to Mr. Waltzer at 335 Decatur Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, which is the address of the law office of Sewall S. Fine, with whom Mr. Waltzer was formerly associated. The disputants have filed written statements in accordance with § 965.5 of the rules of practice. The following findings are based on the record thus established.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In 1964 disputant Fine commenced the private practice of law as a sole proprietorship known as Sewall S. Fine, Attorney, at the address 335 Decatur Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

2. In 1967 disputant Fine employed disputant Waltzer as a special partner in the law business at the address in question. Thereafter, the business was known as Fine & Waltzer, Attorneys; Fine, Waltzer, Winters & Bagneris; Fine, Waltzer & Bagneris; and Fine, Waltzer, Bagneris & RePass.

3. In January 1987, disputant Waltzer terminated his relationship with Fine and opened a law practice at 144 Elk Street, Suite 1710, New Orleans, LA 70122.

4. Since then mail addressed to disputant Waltzer at the Decatur Street address has been delivered to disputant Fine, who continued the business under the name Law Offices of Sewall S. Fine, and later as Fine, Fine & RePass, and Fine, Fine, Dieth & RePass.

5. Because certain pieces of mail addressed to disputant Waltzer at the Decatur Street address were not received by him on a timely basis, a complaint was filed with the New Orleans Postmaster.

6. Mr. Waltzer was advised by a representative of the Postmaster and counsel for the Southern Region, USPS, that mail addressed to a business will be delivered to the business, and that postal regulations do not permit a current or former employee to effect a change-of-address for mail bearing the address of the business.

7. Dissatisfied with these replies, disputant Waltzer filed an appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The purpose of resolving mail disputes is to determine which party under applicable postal laws and regulations has the right to receive delivery of the mail as addressed. Such determinations are not dispositive on the question of ownership of the mail or entitlement to it.

Under postal regulations mail addressed to an employee of a business at the business address is to be delivered to the business and the employee may not by a change-of-address request divert the delivery of such mail to another address (DMM $Z153.5, 159.211).

Disputant Fine since 1964 has been continuously engaged in the private practice of law, conducting business at the address in issue, 335 Decatur Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, albeit under different names.

Accordingly, disputant Fine is entitled to receive delivery of mail addressed to disputant Waltzer at 335 Decatur Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

The attached mail delivery instruction to the postmaster should be issued.