United States Postal Service(TM)
Administrative Law Judges 


In the Matter of a Mail Dispute		) July 11, 1995
 Between				)
					)
STEPHEN T. HAZUKA     	                )
               				)
	and				)
					)
RODERICK A. RICHARDS			) P.S. Docket No. MD 95-199

APPEARANCE FOR MR. HAZUKA:		Stephen T. Hazuka
					13830 Gavina Avenue
					Sylmar, CA 91342-2612

APPEARANCE FOR MR. RICHARDS:		Roderick A. Richards
					7125 Lennox Ave. #253
					Van Nuys, CA 91405-3172




INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual Transition Book (DMM) §153.721c, which requires the Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution. The mail in dispute, which is addressed to Josefina Sanchez Hazuka at three California addresses, is now being held by the Postmasters at Sylmar, and Van Nuys, California. The three disputed addresses are:

13830 Gavina Avenue, Sylmar, CA 91342-2612,

P.O. Box 922851, Sylmar, CA 91392-2851, and

15600 Vanowen Street, Apt. 206, Van Nuys, CA 91406-5100

Neither disputant has submitted a sworn statement in support of his claim, as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5, although Mr. Hazuka did submit a letter, which was received on June 26, 1995.(1) Mr. Richards submitted sworn comments in reply, in accordance with 39 C.F.R. §965.6. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based on the entire case file, including all the material forwarded by the field counsel.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Stephen Hazuka married Josefina Sanchez Richards on April 28, 1984. Disputant Roderick Richards is Mrs. Hazuka's son from a prior marriage.

2. On April 27, 1994, Josefina Hazuka executed a general power of attorney, naming her son, Roderick Richards, as her attorney-in-fact. She listed her address as P.O. Box 922108, Sylmar, California 91392.

3. At some time, Stephen and Josefina Hazuka separated and, on August 19, 1994, Josefina filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.(2) She listed her address as 15600 Vanowen Street Apt. 206, Van Nuys, California 91406.

4. The above Petition, and Summons, were served on Stephen Hazuka on August 31, 1994.

5. Josefina Hazuka died, from cancer of long duration, on February 9, 1995.

She was still lawfully married to Stephen Hazuka.(3)

6. There is nothing in the case file to indicate that Mrs. Hazuka left a will, or that either disputant, or anyone else, has been appointed by the courts to be the executor or administrator of her estate.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. As a general rule, the authority of an agent to act under a power of attorney is automatically revoked by the death of the principal. This is also the rule under the statutes of the State of California. Cal. Probate Code §4051 and §4152(a)(4).(4) Therefore, any claim Mr. Richards has to the decedent's mail cannot be based on any legal authority given to him by the power of attorney.

2. The Domestic Mail Manual states that mail addressed to a deceased person may be received at the deceased person's address by anyone who would normally receive mail there, and also that mail may be sent to the address of an appointed executor or administrator. DMM § D042.2.4.

3. Mail addressed to Josefina Hazuka at 13830 Gavina Avenue in Sylmar, California should be delivered to that address, and may be received by Stephen Hazuka, who resides at that address.

4. A primary purpose of mail delivery rules is to cause mail to reach the destination intended by the sender. As Stephen and Josefina Hazuka were separated at least as early as August 1, 1994, it is likely that mail sent to Josefina's other addresses is not intended for Stephen. The general power of attorney, although no longer having legal effect, did demonstrate that Josefina intended for her son, Roderick, to manage her day-to-day affairs. Therefore, mail addressed to Josefina at the Sylmar Post Office Box, and at her apartment in Van Nuys, should be delivered to Roderick Richards.

5. This decision deals only with the delivery of the disputed mail, not the ownership of it. If either party receives mail intended for the other, it is the responsibility of each party to forward that mail.

6. The attached mail delivery order should be issued. 

					Bruce R. Houston
					Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge
1. Mr. Hazuka also called me directly on June 12, 1995. He wished to state his case, and to explain the problems that this mail dispute was causing for him. I described the procedures used by the Postal Service to resolve mail disputes, i.e. that cases come to this office only if they cannot be resolved locally, that each side has 15 days to submit written materials, and that I could not make any ruling based on a phone call. I suggested that if he had information that the Postmaster was unaware of, he could discuss it with the Postmaster, but that I could do nothing until both sides had their opportunity to make written submissions.

2. The Petition for Dissolution lists August 1, 1994 as the date of separation, but Mr. Richards' letter states that Josefina and Stephen lived separately for eight years. It is not necessary to resolve this question.

3. This finding is based on Mr. Hazuka's sworn statement, dated May 26, 1995, which was part of the case file. The Death Certificate lists Mrs. Hazuka as "divorced," but there are no documents showing that the dissolution was ever finalized. Mr. Richards' letter does not contest this fact.

4. Contrary to the apparent conclusion of the field counsel, the so-called "durable" power of attorney is designed to survive the incapacitation, not the death, of a principal.