Appeal of P. S. Docket No. MD-197 -- EDWIN G. BLAKE and SONJA HAAG-DUCHARME

Administrative Law Judges

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute		)  January 18, 1994
Between					)
					)
EDWIN G. BLAKE				)
					)
	and				)
					)
SONJA HAAG-DUCHARME			)  P. S. Docket No. MD-197

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT

	 BLAKE:				Edwin G. Blake
					P.O. Box 207
					North Granby, CT  06060-0207

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT

	 HAAG-DUCHARME:			Bruce M. Read, Esq.
					Shepard & Read
					P.O. Box 1092
					Kennebunkport, ME  04046-1092

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

On November 26, 1993, an Initial Decision was issued by an Administrative Law Judge in which it was concluded that mail addressed to Idlease at P.O. Box 3086, Kennebunk, ME 04043-3086, or P.O. Box 3086, Kennebunkport, ME 04046-3086, which is currently being held or hereafter received, is to be delivered in accordance with the direction of Disputant

Haag-Ducharme. Disputant Blake has filed an appeal⁽¹⁾ in which he contends that the Administrative Law Judge made numerous errors of fact, failed to address many of the contentions raised during the course of the proceeding, and ultimately reached an incorrect conclusion concerning delivery of the mail. Disputant Haag-Ducharme did not file a reply to the appeal. All of Disputant Blake's alleged errors and omissions have been reviewed. However, Disputant Blake has not shown that the ultimate conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge is clearly erroneous or that the Initial Decision should otherwise be reversed.

DISCUSSION

Disputant Blake's principal contention on appeal⁽²⁾ is that he operates businesses which are separate from the real estate known as the Idlease Guest Resort and that only the real estate and related personal property were included in the Mortgage and Security Agreement held by the Maine National Bank and subsequently purchased by Disputant Haag-Ducharme at a foreclosure sale. Therefore, according to Disputant Blake, while Disputant Haag-Ducharme acquired the real estate and related personal property, he retained the "business" which included the trade name, and P.O. Boxes and phone number used in the operation of that business. Disputant Blake also contends that the abandonment of any interest in the P.O. Boxes by the trustee in bankruptcy did not result in a transfer of those assets to Disputant Haag-Ducharme, but rather they reverted to Disputant Blake as the prior owner.

Although Disputant Blake contends his hotel/motel reservation business was totally separate from the Idlease Guest Resort property, he has not established that any such separation of interest did in fact exist. Despite bombarding this office with filings, Disputant Blake has not presented any persuasive evidence that he maintained any hotel/motel reservation service other than that which was integral to the operation of the Idlease Guest Resort at 241 Wells Road, Kennebunk, ME. As the record indicates that the real estate located at 241 Wells Road has been operated under the name Idlease Guest Resort for over thirty years, the most likely intended recipient of mail addressed to Idlease is the owner/operator of the resort located at 241 Wells Road.

While there may be minor inaccuracies in the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact, Disputant Blake has not persuasively demonstrated that the Administrative Law Judge improperly failed to consider relevant contentions or that the ultimate conclusion is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, all mail addressed to Idlease at P.O. Box 3086, Kennebunk, ME 04043-3086, or P.O. Box 3086, Kennebunkport, ME 04046-3086, which is currently being held or hereafter received, is to be delivered in accordance with the direction of Disputant Sonja Haag-Ducharme.

This decision does not address the parties' various trademark infringement and unfair competition claims since they are not determinative of the respective rights of the parties to the delivery of the mail. The purpose of a mail dispute proceeding is to determine the right to delivery of the mail, not the ownership of the mail. Therefore, if Disputant Haag-Ducharme receives any mail intended for Disputant Blake, she is responsible for assuring that such mail is promptly delivered to him.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer

1. Concurrent with his notice of appeal, Disputant Blake filed seven motions. By Order dated December 8, 1993, Disputant Blake was informed that the motions would be considered part of his appeal and no separate rulings would be issued. None of the motions have merit. As Disputant Blake's appeal is being denied his three motions for Summary Decision dated November 30, 1993, December 1, 1993, and December 2, 1993, are accordingly denied. In addition, the proceeding was properly conducted in accordance with 39 C.F.R. Part 965 and therefore, his additional motions are likewise denied.

2. Disputant Blake repeatedly states that this action should have commenced in the spring of 1992 when Disputant Blake was still "in control of the mail" and Disputant Haag-Ducharme would have had the burden of proving her right to delivery of the mail. Apparently, Disputant Blake is under the impression that the Postal Service favors the party in control of the mail at the time a mail dispute is first submitted to the Judicial Officer Department. Contrary to Disputant Blake's belief, neither party gains advantage because of the date a mail dispute is filed. Moreover, the Postal Service favors neither party and both parties have an equal burden to establish their right to delivery of the mail in dispute.