In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between:

 MARGARET M. KIELY, d/b/a
 KIELY LEGAL SEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.

 and

 MARGARET C. KRUZA, d/b/a KRUZA PERSONNEL

 P.S. Docket No. MD-42

 02/08/89

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR MARGARET KIELY:
 Margaret M. Kiely, Esq., pro se,
 117 S. 17th St., Suite 2021,
 Philadelphia, PA 19103-5025 

 APPEARANCE FOR MARGARET KRUZA:
 Margaret E. Kruza, pro se,
 1700 Walnut St., Suite 305,
 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6013

This mail dispute proceeding was docketed under Domestic Mail Manual § 153.72, which requires Regional Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to this Department for decision. Both disputants filed written submittals under 39 C.F.R. § 965.5; Disputant Kruza filed separate comments under § 965.6 and Disputant Kiely included her comments in her original submittal. Each disputant claims to be entitled to receive mail addressed to Attorney Placement Services, 1515 Land Title Building, 100 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19110. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the submittals, comments, and exhibits attached thereto:

1. Since 1985, Disputant Margaret Kruza has been the sole owner of Kruza Personnel. At all times relevant hereto, Kruza Personnel was located at 100 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA.

2. On or about August 1, 1987 Kruza hired Margaret M. Kiely to work on a commission basis placing attorneys. Previously, Kruza Personnel placed only secretaries and paralegals. Ms. Kiely had no prior experience in this field, but she was an attorney. On August 1, 1987, Kruza Personnel paid Kiely's dues to both the National Association of Legal Search Consultants and the American Bar Association.

3. On August 4, 1987, Kruza and Kiely filed a fictitious name registration statement in Pennsylvania to operate under the name "Attorney Placement Service" at the 100 S. Broad Street address. Kiely and Kruza each executed the document as an "individual."

4. As stated in published advertisements designed by Kruza and Kiely, Attorney Placement Service was established as a division of Kruza Personnel. It was a name under which Kruza Personnel did business.

5. During the ensuing 9 months Kiely made two commissions, both of which were paid by Kruza Personnel. The latter paid over $30,000 in expenses during that period in connection with Attorney Placement Service. These expenses included public relations, brochures, advertising, seminars for Kiely, and certain payments to Kiely for legal services, advances, and commissions. In addition, Kruza Personnel paid all of the overhead expenses (rent, telephone, etc.) attributable to Attorney Placement Service. Although it appears that Kiely did pay some expenses, these appear to have been minimal.

6. Kiely was discharged by Kruza Personnel on June 1, 1988. Subsequent advertisements did not refer to Kiely.

7. On October 14, 1988, Kruza moved the offices of Kruza Personnel to Suite 305 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

1. An addressee may control delivery of his own mail. Domestic Mail Manual § 153.11(a). Disputant Kruza is admittedly the sole owner of Kruza Personnel. As previously found, Attorney Placement Services is a division of Kruza Personnel. Although the fictitious name statement, standing alone, would tend to indicate that Kiely and Kruza formed a partnership, the preponderance of other evidence requires a finding that Kiely was hired by Kruza to work in the Attorney Placement Services division of Kruza Personnel. Accordingly, any mail addressed to Attorney Placement Services at 100 S. Broad Street should be forwarded in accordance with the order of the owner of Kruza Personnel, Disputant Kruza.

2. However, the mail would not be deliverable to Disputant Kiely even if Attorney Placement Services had constituted a partnership between Kruza and Kiely. DMM § 153.52 provides that mail addressed to a partnership is delivered as addressed so long as the business is being conducted under the same name at the same address despite some members of the firm breaking off relations. Thus even if they had been partners prior to Kiely's departure on June 1, 1988, after that date mail addressed to Attorney Placement Services at 100 S. Broad Street would have been delivered as addressed. Kruza continued to operate the attorney placement service at that address with her husband. It was not until October 14, 1988 that Kruza moved her business to Suite 305, 1700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Having established her right to mail delivery, Kruza was entitled to continued delivery when she moved in October. Thus, even if a partnership had existed, mail addressed to Attorney Placement Services at 100 S. Broad Street should be forwarded in accordance with Ms. Kruza's order.

3. The purpose of resolving mail disputes is to determine which party under applicable postal laws and regulations has the right to the delivery of mail as addressed. Such determinations are not dispositive on the question of the ownership of the mail or entitlement to it. Thus if Disputant Kruza receives any mail clearly intended for Disputant Kiely, the former will be responsible for forwarding such mail to the latter.

4. The attached mail delivery instruction should be issued.