In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between:

 BRIAN EILAND
 and
 TREVOR GOVERD

 P.S. Docket No. MD-97

 10/2/90

 Brochstein, David I., Administrative Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT EILAND: Brian Eiland, 1 Village Circle,
 Denton, MD 21629-1100 

 APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT GOVERD:  None

This mail dispute was docketed in accordance with Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 153.72, at the request of Disputant Eiland following review of the matter by Regional Counsel. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Firefly International, Route 3, Box 200, Denton, MD 21629-9466. Mr. Eiland's letter to the Judicial Officer has been treated as his submittal under § 965.5 of the Rules of Practice (39 C.F.R. § 965.5). Mr. Goverd has made no submittal and, therefore, may be held in default under § 965.7 of the Rules.n1

n1 With the exception of one item, certified mail from this Department addressed to Mr. Goverd at the disputed address has not been claimed by him and has been returned. According to personnel at the Denton post office, such mail would have been released to Mr. Goverd had he so requested.

1. In November 1988 Disputants Eiland and Goverd entered into a partnership for the purpose of producing and distributing a particular type of sailboat. The partnership was to be known as Firefly International. Disputant Eiland received a two-thirds interest in the partnership and Disputant Goverd received a one-third interest. There was no written partnership agreement.

2. The operations of the partnership were set up in a building in Denton, Maryland, to which the disputed address was assigned by the postmaster. In November 1989, the partnership closed down a previous office in Annapolis, Maryland, and moved its office to 1 Village Circle, Denton, MD. However, the Route 3, Box 200 address was to be used as the firm's mailing address.

3. In January 1990 dissolution of the partnership was commenced. All of the partnership's equipment has been moved to a different location and it no longer operates at the disputed address, which is now occupied by a different business. Disputant Eiland seeks to have the firm's mail forwarded to the location to which the firm's equipment was moved or to the firm's office at 1 Village Circle, in order to proceed with winding up the partnership's business. Disputant Goverd sought to have the mail delivered to the partnership's previous location (the disputed address), which he claimed was still in operation.

Since Disputant Goverd failed to file a submittal in this proceeding he is in default. 39 C.F.R. § 965.7.

Under DMM § 153.52 mail addressed to a partnership is to be delivered as addressed "as long as the business is being conducted under the same name at the same address, despite some members of the firm breaking off relations." In this instance, based on Mr. Eiland's submittal, I conclude that the firm is no longer conducting business at the disputed address. Therefore, the DMM does not require that partnership mail be delivered to the disputed address.

Dissolution of a partnership does not result in its immediate termination. Rather, a partner may continue to act for the partnership to wind up the partnership affairs or to complete any transactions unfinished at the time of dissolution. Maryland Code Ann., § 9-604, 9-606, 9-608 (Michie 1990). Since Disputant Eiland is acting to wind up the partnership's affairs it is necessary that he receive mail intended for the business. Accordingly, mail addressed to the business should be delivered as directed by Disputant Eiland.

The purpose of this proceeding is to determine which party is entitled to delivery of the mail in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a court order. This decision does not determine the question of ownership of the mail or ultimate entitlement to it. Thus, if Disputant Eiland receives personal mail clearly intended for Disputant Goverd, he should attempt to have the mail forwarded to the correct destination.

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