In the Matter of a Mail Dispute ) September 16, 1993 Between: ) ) HARVEY TULCHINSKY ) ) and ) ) JANET TULCHINSKY ) P. S. Docket No. MD-195 APPEARANCE FOR HARVEY TULCHINSKY: Frank D. Presto, Esq. Presto and Heasom 480 St. John St., Suite 260 Pleasanton, CA 94566-6533 APPEARANCE FOR JANET TULCHINSKY: Gayle Bishop, Esq. 18 Crow Canyon Ct., Suite 230 San Ramon, CA 94583-1669
In an August 4, 1993 letter to the Judicial Officer Department of the Postal Service, Harvey Tulchinsky complained that personal mail addressed to him at 8917 San Ramon Road, Dublin, California, was not being delivered to him and that the delivery post office had refused his request that his mail so addressed be forwarded to him. He requested that the dispute be resolved by the Judicial Officer Department pursuant to Section 153.721c of the Domestic
Mail Manual1/ ("DMM"), which provides for resolution of certain mail disputes by the Judicial Officer Department. Mr. Tulchinsky's letter was docketed as a mail dispute between Mr. Tulchinsky and Janet Tulchinsky, the person alleged by Mr. Tulchinsky to have wrongfully interfered with his mail, and the disputants were provided copies of the Postal Service's Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Mail Disputes, 39 C.F.R. Part 965. Neither party has filed a submittal as required by 39 C.F.R. § 965.5. Nevertheless, a copy of a court order supplied by the Pleasanton Post Office and correspondence attached to Mr. Tulchinsky's letter provide sufficient information to support a decision in this matter. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon that information.
1. Harvey Tulchinsky and Janet Tulchinsky operated Harvey's One Hour Cleaners at 8917 San Ramon Road, Dublin, CA 94568-1061.
2. By order of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa, dated June 14, 1993, Janet Tulchinsky was placed in charge of the operation of Harvey's One Hour Cleaners while steps could be taken to sell the business, and Harvey Tulchinsky was ordered not to interfere with her operation of the business.
3. Until June 24, 1993, all mail addressed to 8917 San Ramon Road in Dublin was delivered as addressed.
4. On June 24, 1993, Mr. Tulchinsky, through counsel, demanded that the post office hold all mail addressed to him at the above address and allow him to pick up his mail at the post office.
5. Notwithstanding his demand, at least some mail intended for him was delivered to 8917 San Ramon Road and, according to Mr. Tulchinsky, opened before it was delivered to him.
6. DMM Transition Book, § 153.41 provides:
"All mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental organization (including but not limited to corporations, firms, sole proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, and associations) or to an individual by name or title (an official, employee, contractor, client, agent, etc.) at the address of the organization is delivered to the organization. This regulation also applies to mail addressed in this manner to former officials, employees, contractors, agents, clients, etc. of the organization. If disagreement arises as to where any such mail should be delivered, it must be delivered according to the order of the organization's president or equivalent official."
7. DMM Transition Book, § 153.73 provides:
"When the same mail is claimed by different persons, and a court decides to whom delivery should be made, the mail is delivered according to the court order."
DMM D042.6.3 is to the same effect: "Mail is delivered under a court order issued for mail claimed by different persons."
8. DMM Transition Book, § 159.211b provides:
"A change of address may not be filed with the USPS for an individual's mail addressed to an organization, or to the individual at his or her place of employment, business, or other affiliation, either during or after the termination of the employment, business, or other relationship. Such mail is delivered under 153.4."
1. Neither disputant has filed a submission as required by the rules of practice governing mail dispute proceedings. Both are therefore in default. 39 C.F.R. § 965.7.
2. By its determination that Ms. Tulchinsky is entitled to operate the business, the California Superior Court decided that the business' mail should be delivered to her. See DMM Transition Book, § 153.73.
3. Alternatively, by authorizing her to operate the business, to the exclusion of Mr. Tulchinsky, the Court established that she is an official equivalent to the president of the organization and is entitled to direct delivery of the organization's mail. See DMM Transition Book, § 153.41.
4. Pursuant to DMM Transition Book 153.41, her authority to control delivery of the mail extends not only to mail addressed to Harvey's One Hour Cleaners, but also to mail addressed to 8917 San Ramon Road to former officials, agents and employees of the business, which would include Mr. Tulchinsky.
5. The post office is precluded from forwarding Mr. Tulchinsky's mail separately from that of the business. See DMM Transition Book, § 159.211b. Thus, mail addressed to Mr. Tulchinsky at 8917 San Ramon Road should be delivered as addressed.
6. Resolution of this dispute determines only the right to delivery of the mail. It does not determine the question of ownership. If Ms. Tulchinsky receives mail intended for Mr. Tulchinsky, she is responsible for assuring it is delivered to Mr. Tulchinsky.
7. The attached mail delivery order should be issued.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge
1/ Section 153.72c now appears in the DMM Transition Book (Effective 7-1-93 to 6-30-94).