In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between: 

 GEORGE HUSACK and CURTIS HACKWORTH & JAMES B. HACKWORTH

 P.S. Docket No. MD-78

 04/20/90

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR GEORGE HUSACK:  George Husack, Pro Se, 55 West  
 5th Avenue #7B, San Mateo, CA  94402-2049  

 APPEARANCE FOR CURTIS AND JAMES HACKWORTH:  James B. Hackworth,  
 Pro Se, 1650 Borel Place #203, San Mateo, CA  94402-3508  

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. The dispute concerns delivery of mail addressed to P.O. Box 2, San Mateo, CA 94401. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the submittals and exhibits attached thereto:

1. On or about June 18, 1987, the parties to this mail dispute entered into a written Agreement in which Disputant Husack sold Raybould & Bartlett Insurance Agency to Disputant Hackworth. Husack retained Raybould & Bartlett, Inc., which operated a real estate business with the mailing address of P.O. Box 2, San Mateo, CA 94401. Husack is the president of the latter corporation.

2. Although the written Agreement did not transfer to Hackworth the right to receive mail at P.O. Box 2, the parties entered into an informal, oral agreement under which Hackworth would share the box with Husack until the expiration of the lease on 217 Baldwin, San Mateo, CA, which was taken over by Hackworth. The written Agreement indicates that the lease expired on March 31, 1989.

3. As indicated on his letterhead, Hackworth no longer operates the insurance agency at the 217 Baldwin address. Although the terms of the original oral agreement no longer provide Hackworth access to the box, Husack has voluntarily allowed Hackworth's insurance agency to continue to receive mail there and to make the box rental payments on P.O. Box 2 on Husack's behalf.

4. Hackworth and the insurance agency have made the box rental payment for the past two years. Husack has allowed Hackworth to make such payments because Husack contends that Hackworth owes him money on an unrelated debt.

5. Hackworth's insurance agency has recently instructed persons to refrain from sending mail intended for Raybould & Bartlett Real Estate to P.O. Box 2, stating that the latter is no longer receiving mail at that box.

1. The only issue is whether the seller, Disputant Husack, or the buyer, Disputant Hackworth, of the Raybould & Bartlett Insurance Agency has a right to receive mail at Post Office Box 2 after the sale. Prior to the sale Raybould & Bartlett, Inc. ("corporation") was the box customer and had the exclusive right to receive mail addressed to the box. Although the written Agreement of sale did not convey the right to use of the box, Disputant Hackworth now contends that he and the insurance agency are entitled to receive all mail addressed to P.O. Box 2 in view of a subsequent oral agreement and the fact that the corporation is no longer actively engaged in business.

2. When he sold the insurance portion of his business, Husack, as president of Raybould & Bartlett, Inc., retained his status as box customer and the right to receive mail at P.O. Box 2. However, in an informal, oral agreement he allowed Hackworth to share the box with him until the expiration of the lease on 217 Baldwin. Since the expiration of the lease, Husack has voluntarily allowed Hackworth to continue to receive mail at his box. The mere fact that Hackworth made the payments on the box for two years does not prove that Husack has relinquished his right to the box. Husack considered those payments to have been made on his behalf. Husack's box has not been terminated by the Postmaster. Accordingly, he is still the box customer.

3. Although Husack's real estate license may have been revoked, his corporation, Raybould & Bartlett, Inc., still exists and he and the corporation have a right to continue to receive mail addressed to P.O. Box 2.

4. The Administrative Law Judge has no jurisdiction over the alleged charges of "mail tampering."

5. Resolution of this mail dispute determines only who is entitled to delivery of the mail, and is not intended to be dispositive of the question of ownership of the mail.

6. The attached mail delivery order should be issued.