May 8, 1991
In the Matter of the Petition by
PROPERTY EXCHANGE & SALES, INC.
625 N. New Ballas #200
at
St. Louis, MO 63141-6713
Denial of Application for Renewal
Of Post Office Box 12705
P.S. Docket No. 37/120
APPEARANCES FOR PROPERTY EXCHANGES:
R. Jacobs
M. Dillard
625 N. Ballas #200
St. Louis, MO 63141-6713
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jerry Belenker, Esq.
Consumer Protection Division
United States Postal Service
Law Department
Washington, DC 20260-1114
INITIAL DECISION
Petitioner requests the return of Post Office Box 12705, St. Louis, MO 63141 which, it claims, has been improperly rented to another entity. Each party has moved for summary judgment in its favor. There are disputed questions of fact but each party asserts that the record supports its position and appears willing that the case be decided on the written record as supplemented by written argument. The record was closed on April 15, 1991, with the filing of Petitioner's addendum to its response to Respondent's compliance with the order of March 27, 1991.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner was the boxholder of P. O. Box 12705, St. Louis, MO 64141, from 1982 until approximately March 10, 1990.
2. Petitioner claims, and Respondent denies, that the post office failed to place in the box, in accordance with Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 951.281, Notice 32 (Box Rent or Caller Service Fee Due) for the rent due March 1, 1990.
3. In any event, the rent due for the period March 1, 1990 - March 1, 1991 was not paid by March 1 or within 10 days thereafter.
4. On or about April 3, 1990, petitioner found that it could not gain access to the box and, on inquiry, was advised that rent was overdue and the box had been closed. Petitioner immediately tendered the rental fee to the station manager who refused to accept it, stating that a new application (Form 1093) would be required.
5. Petitioner, on April 5, tendered a new application and the rental fee with the request that it be reassigned box 12705, which, it was advised, had not been re-rented. The station manager required identification. On April 18, M. Dillard, representing Petitioner, returned to the post office with the new application and identification. A clerk verified the identification and placed a date stamp on the application. The clerk was advised by another employee that he was not to accept it because the station manager wanted to act on it personally. Claiming to find a discrepancy between the identification offered and information on the application, the station manager, either on April 18 or shortly thereafter, refused the application. No formal written determination was issued confirming such refusal.
6. On or about April 26, the box was rented to another postal customer.
7. Thereafter, Petitioner demanded of the postmaster, and sought through members of Congress and the Consumer Affairs Division at Headquarters, USPS, the reassignment to it of Box 12705 and the transfer of the new box holder to another box.
8. By letter dated October 15, 1990, Congressman William D. Ford, Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, wrote to the Postmaster General in behalf of Ms. M. Dillard and Mr. R. Jacobs of Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. concerning Post Office Box 12705. The Postmaster General responded to Mr. Ford by letter dated November 26, 1990, in which he stated that according to advice received from St. Louis Field Division officials the box had been properly closed because of failure to pay rent and had been rented to a new customer before Petitioner's representative provided the required address information on a new application. The Postmaster General further stated that although Petitioner later furnished the required information the box could not be withdrawn from the new boxholder and rented to Petitioner. He stated that Petitioner would be provided another box if he desired.
9. On December 13, 1990, the St. Louis Division General Manager/Postmaster issued a letter to Petitioner containing the determination that Petitioner's officers, M. Dillard and R. Jacobs, had failed to renew the rental of P. O. Box 12705 within the guidelines set forth in section 951 of the DMM in failing to pay the rental fee within the time allowed, thereby effectively surrendering the box under 951.32b, thus permitting the closing of the box in accordance with 951.29 and re-renting pursuant to 951.35. The letter concluded with the statement that Petitioner may rent another post office box within the city of St. Louis by providing the correct application and payment.
10. Late in December 1990 following receipt of the December 13 letter, Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. filed with the postmaster a "Petition for Return of Post Office Box Because of Improper Denial of Application."
DISCUSSION
The petition presents a demand for the return of Box 12705 which has been rented to another postal customer since April 1990. The questions whether the box was or was not properly closed and deemed surrendered for non-payment of the rental fee and whether Petitioner's new application for that box was improperly denied have been mooted by the rental of the box to another postal customer. The DMM makes no provision for withdrawal of a box from a postal customer should it be determined that the former holder has been improperly denied renewal of service. Further, the Postmaster General has stated in his letter to Congressman Ford that Box 12705 cannot be withdrawn from the new boxholder but that Petitioner will be provided another post office box if it wishes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The petition presents a demand for which the regulations provide no relief. Accordingly, it must be and hereby is dismissed.
Quentin E. Grant
Chief Administrative Law Judge