In the Matter of a Mail Dispute ) September 11, 1996
Between )
)
STEVEN REYNOLDS )
)
and )
)
NORMAN C. CONRAD, JR. ) P.S. Docket No. MD 96-211
APPEARANCE FOR STEVEN REYNOLDS: None
APPEARANCE FOR NORMAN C. CONRAD, JR.: Norman C. Conrad, Jr.
P.O. Box 126
Springville, NY 14141-0126
INITIAL DECISION
The United States Postal Service Law Department has referred this mail dispute to this office for resolution. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Leland House, 26 East Main Street, Springville, NY 14141-1230. Disputant Conrad has submitted a sworn statement as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. The following findings of fact and decision are based on the submittal by Disputant Conrad and on the documents that were submitted by the Law Department.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In October 1988, Norman Conrad and Levenia Conrad entered into a purchase agreement with "R.M. and R.W. Enser General Partnership ... and Richard N. Enser and Richard W. Enser" ("the Ensers") to purchase the business, known as Leland House, located at the disputed address. Among the assets specifically transferred to Mr. Conrad was the use of the name "Leland House." In a January 1989 agreement, the parties modified the original agreement to transfer the trade name and good will to NCL Corporation. Mr. Conrad was the president of that corporation.
2. In April 1993 NCL Corporation filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (reorganization). The bankruptcy case was later converted to one under Chapter 7 (liquidation). The Chapter 7 case was closed in January 1995, after the bankruptcy trustee concluded that there were no assets for him to distribute.
3. On April 6, 1995, the business was purchased by Disputant Reynolds from the Ensers.1
4. On April 7, 1995, Mr. Conrad filed a change of address form directing that mail addressed to Leland House at the disputed address be forwarded to him at P.O. Box 126, Springville, NY. At the end of July 1995, Mr. Reynolds contacted the postmaster in Springville and requested that Leland House mail be delivered to the 26 E. Main Street address, thereby precipitating this dispute.
5. The only mail in dispute is that addressed to Leland House, 26 E. Main Street. That mail is being held by the Springville postmaster. Mail addressed to Mr. Reynolds at 26 E. Main Street is being delivered, as is mail addressed to Mr. Conrad at P.O. Box 126.
DECISION
Mr. Reynolds has failed to file a sworn statement (or any statement), as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. Under 39 C.F.R. §965.7, he may be held in default and a decision issued directing that the mail in dispute be delivered as directed by Mr. Conrad. Based on the record, however, I conclude that holding Mr. Reynolds in default is inappropriate and that the mail should be delivered as directed by him.
Mr. Conrad does not dispute that Mr. Reynolds is the owner of the property at the disputed address, 26 E. Main Street, Springville, NY. However, Mr. Conrad maintains that the right to use the trade name "Leland House" did not revert to the Ensers following the bankruptcy proceeding and, therefore, could not have been conveyed to Mr. Reynolds when he bought the business. Mr. Conrad contends that the name reverted back to him upon dissolution of the NCL Corporation by virtue of the bankruptcy.
Whatever may be the status of the ownership of the name "Leland House," it appears that Mr. Reynolds is using the name in connection with the business being operated at the disputed address. Further, the dispute over delivery of the mail did not arise until late July 1995. Therefore, any mail now being held by the postmaster was mailed at least three months after Mr. Reynolds acquired the property and over seven months after the completion of bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, I conclude that those sending that mail intended that it be delivered to the business being operated at 26 E. Main Street, which business is owned by Mr. Reynolds. Therefore, the mail should be delivered as directed by Mr. Reynolds.
This decision addresses only the right to delivery of mail. It does not address the ownership of that mail. Further, it does not address, and is not intended to be a decision on, the question of the right to use the name "Leland House." If Mr. Reynolds receives mail intended for Mr. Conrad, he is to have that mail forwarded to Mr. Conrad promptly.
The attached mail delivery order should be issued.
David I. Brochstein Administrative Judge